Photos
So, we had a Staff Meeting last week, which basically means an extended email thread, in which everyone decided that we weren’t going to LIVE cover the MTV Video Music Awards on the night of this year with one of our classic (so CLASSIC) Videogum Video Pizza Parties because, we decided, it’s 2011, music videos no longer exist, MTV might as well change it’s name to Jersey Shore TV (which, to be fair, is still better than The Hard Times of RJ Berger TV) and who even watches this stupid thing? Does anyone even watch it? Now that we live in The Children of Men, surely no one watches this thing anymore. Or wait, does EVERYONE watch it? Because based on the most casual of glances at my Twitter feed last night, it would seem that EVERYONE watches it. Hahha, you guys! Come on! What’s up? What’re you doin’? Hahahha. Oh brother. Twitter should put a hand-written sign on its door that reads NO ADULTS ALLOWED STAY OUT!
Well, so, how wast it? Clearly you ALL watched it, how was it? I know there was no host? Was that fun? Lady Gaga dressed up like a “man”? I did not watch it, incidentally. My DVR was busy taping stuff and wouldn’t let me flip around, although I turn to it right at the very end when Russell Brand, whose face was a different color than the rest of his body, was attempting to offer a moving tribute to Amy Winehouse but in his same overly-high-energy, former-drug-addict-mania rant style that he uses in hit films like Arthur. Uh, that’s weird to do that. Someone should tell him? I’m sure MTV asked him to provide the Amy Winehouse tribute after his open letter did so well on blogs, but to hear him shriek it in person is entirely unsettling. It’s particularly weird and intense when he was saying that she suffered from an “illness,” referring to her alcoholism and drug addiction but without using those words, and then insisting that if there are people who suffer from this same illness that there is a “cure,” but then never saying what the cure is. YIKES! It was very coded and insinuating. You kind of half expected for helmeted paratroopers to drop in from the ceiling and round up all of the “sick people.” Anyway, that is literally all that I saw of the VMAs. Neat!
Full list of WINNERS and your thoughts about what the VMAs mean in 2011 after the jump:
VIDEO OF THE YEAR:
Katy Perry – “Firework”
BEST NEW ARTIST:
Tyler, The Creator – “Yonkers”
BEST HIP-HOP VIDEO:
Nicki Minaj – “Super Bass”
BEST MALE VIDEO:
Justin Bieber – “U Smile”
BEST FEMALE VIDEO:
Lady Gaga – “Born This Way”
BEST POP VIDEO:
Britney Spears – “Till The World Ends”
BEST ROCK VIDEO:
Foo Fighters – “Walk”
BEST COLLABORATION:
Katy Perry Featuring Kanye West – “E.T.”
BEST VIDEO WITH A MESSAGE:
Lady Gaga, “Born This Way”
BEST ART DIRECTION:
Adele – “Rolling In The Deep”
BEST CHOREOGRAPHY:
Beyoncé – “Run The World (Girls)”
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:
Adele – “Rolling In The Deep”
BEST DIRECTION:
Adele – “Rolling In The Deep”
BEST EDITING:
Adele – “Rolling In The Deep”
BEST SPECIAL EFFECTS:
Katy Perry featuring Kanye West – “E.T.”
 |
 |
I think I mention this every time there is an awards show, but since it continues to be a stupid, stupid trend, I continue to feel the need to point it out.
People in charge of this bullshit: if you want me to believe that your award show is legitimate, learn to make some goddamn sense. For instance, how is it possible that the “video of the year” was for a pop song by a female, yet did not win either “best female video” or “best pop video?” UGH, this annoys me much more than it should, and the fact that I am so annoyed by it just annoys me even more. I’m going back to bed, someone wake me up when September ends.
Forget it Facetaco, it’s the VMAs.
I guess award shows make facetaco quote Green Day songs.
“Wake me up when September Ends” is one of my favorite things to say.
obvs they should have given best male video to lady gaga. then we could talk about how they shouldn’t have done that.
Is it because she is awful and shouldn’t win ANY awards? I’ll bet that’s it.
Booo. As a gay man, I’m contractually obligated to defend Gaga.
As a gay man with ears, I’m obligated to point out that her beats would have sounded corny in 1996.
At least she sang live. That’s something….that we don’t expect from the VMA’s.
As a gay man I’m only contractually obligated to like men…and i got to tell you sometimes even that’s a stretch.
Lady Gaga’s male half is named Lester Gaga.
Do they still give out those moon man statues? I feel like a 12 year old in 2011 would just find them confusing, since they don’t remember those MTV promos and Neil Armstrong is probably about as recognizable to them as Adlai Stevenson.
I don’t know, R2. Kids these days love Adlai Stevenson. He’s the new Bieber.
They DO look pretty excited.
I love the sad attempt to counterbalance all the vanity, stupidity, dumbing down, stereotyping, misogyny, sexism, exploitation, meaningless pop bubblegum drivel, etc that is featured every day on that bloody channel with the one award entitled: “BEST VIDEO WITH A MESSAGE”
MTV–still all about da kidz
They didn’t say best video witha GOOD message. The message could be that getting knocked up when you’re still in high school will get you on the front pages of the tabloids.
facetaco–still all about da monday morning wizdom
Was that invented just for this year so they could jump on the “It Gets Better” train, just in case Born This Way didn’t win? This is a question for the MTV Video Music Award historians in the crowd, don’t all answer at once.
(haha “in case it didn’t win”! Of course it was going to win something! She’s a big star who makes a lot of money for MTV and that song got a lot of press! The VMAs don’t do surprises.)
Katy Perry looks like one of those posters that were always hanging in hair salons in the 80s. Anyone?
I love when I see these still hanging in windows of beauty shops or nail salons, usually faded from years of sun.
Not as sexy as the Gyro Lady. Love me some Gyro Lady.
I’ve started to think of her as a lost character from PeeWee’s Playhouse.
Im glad Russel Brandts speech was pointed out. One thing about addiction is that it is all around us, but we either choose to ignore it or send it into church basements and request anonimity. I know this is a complicated issue and people take it very serious, but I hate the disease concept/ illness model for addiction. Groups like NA and AA demand anonimity and requests that people like Russel Brandt give vague speeches on stage. If he was like “yeah I go to meetings and it may help you if you have a problem,” it may have helped someone or saved a life. Shows like Intervention end up exploiting the process or bastardizing recovery. I Know I get it, sometimes anonimity is important for many reasons, but continually telling people they have a disease/ live long illness is, to me, only to me, demeaning to ones self. I feel like you are putting a disability on yourself. Sure the disease model is the most successful, but call it what it is a “mental health problem”. It is not like cancer or AIDS. Sorry. Nope. Cancer patients don’t meet in basements to take their medication.
Too much for a Monday morning?
Agreed. I’ve always thought the whole “recovering alcoholic/you’re never completely cured” thing is some bullshit meant to keep AA going strong after people have recovered. Admitting defeat before you even start isn’t helping anybody.
Going strong? I suppose the organization could be making a profit from book sales, but most of that goes back into key chains and booklets. Other than that, meeting attendees are asked to donate a buck for the coffee fund and that’s it.
They don’t make a profit. I understood Taco’s “going strong” comment as “perpetuating the cause” for the true believers such as Brandt. I understand that there are people that need to believe they will never recover to stay sober. I mean there are people that have more years drunk/ high than sober in their entire life, but lumping them in with a 25 year old who got lost in life, and telling them they are both the same, is not true, it can be sometimes, but I would say in most instances its not.
Fortunately, there are many people who never become addicted to drugs or alcohol. Some people experiment or have some rough years and come out fine on the other side. But for others, it definitely IS a lifelong problem that must be managed every moment of everyday. And being honest about facing the issue really is the first step in leading a different life.
So, jwormyk and facetaco, are you basically saying that addiction is a choice, and not a disease? Not trying to oversimplify your comments, just trying to understand your point(s).
AA doesn’t tell people they’ll never recover. It tells people that it may be a lifelong challenge/struggle/journey that they’ll have to deal with every day. Even after the drinking stops, there are years of behavioral, relationship, and personal issues to deal with on a day-to-day basis. And, even if an AA member is in recovery, they can attend meetings to help other members.
No offense or anything, but as someone who finds value in Al-anon meetings, these types of programs do help (some) people.
I think that by defining ti as a disease, it makes people hide it and feel ashamed. Additionally, I think that it is usually a coping mechanism for a more serious mental problem like depression, bi-polarism, or deep emotional pain ( physical/ sexual abuse).. When you are in active addiction your brain circuitry is actuall not working properly, but after rehab or whatever treatment you go through and you actually deal with your deep issues, you can live a nirmal life and not have to define yourself as a person with a disease and go to meetings to treat your disease. I also think there are just people that do everything to the extreme. They are all or nothing and there is no such thing as moderation. Do they have a disease? No, it is just who they are. They will have to one day make a decision that they can’t use alcholhol or drugs. They may even need help to stop, but I just don’t think saying you have a life long disease which there is no real cure for makes sense.
@problematique I actaully think meetings are a good thing and think they work for a lot of people. The best thing about meetings are that you can be around people that undersatnd and you don’t feel alone. That is not my problem. My problem more lies in the way we view addiction in this society in general and I feel that keeping it in the shadows and church basements and defining it as a “disease”, ends up pushing a lot of people away that need help rather than making them feel comfortable to be honest about their problem. I know its a complicated issue, but it really comes down to semanics with me. I think that there is a place for the existing model, but I also think it shouldn’t be so universally accepted as the only way to get sober.
Well, the anonymity allowed people to attend in the early stages of the organization, because back then being caught as an admitted addict was a huge jeopardy to their jobs and social circles. If a person was functioning, everyone would just not talk about what abusive assholes they were, and if they spun out of control they were hospitalized. Nowadays, the anonymity serves as a guarantee of privacy. It’s not about, lie to everyone because this is shameful, it’s a code that guarantees that you can come and share your personal story without it being spread around.
And the meetings are relegated to church basements in most instances because it’s a free place to gather and groups can be localized. The churches volunteer their meeting rooms a couple times a week, and that means that people that can’t afford counseling or find a way to fewer and far between alternative groups, have access to a form of treatment.
I think the set-up is really serviceable, overall. And a totally separate discussion from whether terms of illness should be applied to addicts.
I think the anonimity within the organizations is a good thing for people choose to hide their addiction (because that should be a choice), but honestly if you look at people who are really doing well in recovery and have many years sober, it is because they are not hiding anything. Part of having the problem like I said above is that you are not dealing with some emotional physchological problem inside. Keeping the secret of being an addict, even when sober, can be a problem in itself. Look at Eminem, Russel Brandt, and Elton John. They seem to be doing pretty well right now and they are all very open about their history with addiction. I don’t want to come across as being against NA or AA. I think they are awesome and successful, I just think that the issue has many sides and we tend to approach it one way.
But what I’m saying is the anonymity is not about hiding the addiction. It’s just a privacy measure for group meetings (and kind of isn’t even then? Between sponsors, and people that become friends or hook up). It’s encouraged in the 12 Steps to admit to your problem, and then to go around to the people who have been affected and make amends. I think there’s an acknowledgement of the personal nature of recovery, and the Steps are written vaguely enough to give breathing room to people that would rather have their struggles be secret in their outside lives, but otherwise, they are really big on owning up (Hi, my name is, right off the bat). Think of it more like the confidentiality agreement with a therapist.
I’m just pointing this out because it seems like there’s kind of a mystery to anyone who hasn’t been involved with recovery groups. The only heirloom I received from the paternal side of my family was a well-used, ancient copy of The Blue Book, and I went to NA meetings for a couple months. I wasn’t trying to debate against your views, I’m just giving some of the background facts on the subject.
FT I see you watched Breaking Bad last night?
I wouldn’t equate facing the issue of alcoholism with “admitting defeat.”
Hi, I’m head pants now, and I’m an addict. [Hi.]
Admitting defeat means acknowledging your incapacity to drink/use successfully, and that use of mind or mood altering drugs has caused unmanageability in your life in whatever form. “Defeat” is the admission that the mental (in the form of obsession and compulsion) and/or physical (withdrawal) allergic reaction to a substance is stronger than your own willpower alone. This admission is different for everyone depending on their definition of unmanageability and their tolerance of pain. When we admit we are defeated, I take that as meaning we admit we MIGHT need help from other people who have experience with the same problem. That’s it. It works for some, it doesn’t for others. Just like any other church/cult/group therapy/entertainment blog.
These are my personal views and do not represent AA or NA or any other A group. But I’ve had personal experience here and thought I’d chime in.
It won’t let me reply directly to you head pants now, but to clarify: the part of facetaco’s comment I took issue with was “Admitting defeat before you even start” which seemed to mean something entirely different than “admitting defeat” in the AA sense. But I may have misinterpreted his meaning entirely?
My reply is actually to jwormyk and uberstellar’s comments on this thread, although I do agree with you, rootmarm. My take on addiction is that by admitting you have a disease actually allows you to break free of the chains of guilt by owning it. You can put a name to your problem and say that you have a disease and are seeking ongoing treatment, whether it be through attending AA or private therapy or whatever other means you have available and whatever works. I do know that physical addiction is a very real thing, having some family members who have died of alcoholism-related liver disease; certain parts of the addicts’ brains have been proven to be stimulated differently and respond differently to alcohol or whatever other drug they may be addicted to. Having the disease of addiction is not something to be ashamed of, just as having cancer is nothing to hide from. (Although obviously there are stigmas attached to addiction that other diseases may not have.) But I would not say that by calling it a “disease” you are “admitting defeat” or anything of that nature. But it may be acknowledging that you aren’t going to be able to walk into a bar and have a beer with your friends, even if you are 20 years sober, because you cannot risk a relapse. I really agree with uberstellar, that whether AA “works” is a separate discussion from whether addicts should be identified as having an illness.
i hear you, rootmarm (great name).. now i see what you were saying. I re-read the facetaco post and your comment makes more sense as a reply. busy thread guys but good dialogue!
I don’t watch MTV, bu my husband is cooler than I am, so we caught some parts of the show. Here are some of very many problems:
1. WHHHHAAAATT was up with the woman sitting in that giant plastic throne/toilet thing who sang between commercial breaks. She was awful. I’m sure she’s also famous, but, again, i’m not cool.
2. I like Chris Brown even less now than I always did. What was the point of his even wearing a microphone? The worst
Credit where credit is due: Adele’s Rolling in the Deep had notably good cinematography. Just seeing that video, you realized that they cinematographered the Hell out of that song.
Yes, I was just going to say this. I appreciate that that was probably the best put-together video on the list and, in an uncharacteristic move, MTV awarded all the technical awards to it. Good work Adele.
It was clearly done on a state of the art cinematograph.
I only watch videos that are made with adult cinematographs (aka pornographs).
My favorite part of the first part of the show that I only watched was when Lady Gaga had Brian May as her guitarist. The only person excited was Dave Grohl and all of Lady Gaga fans where confused about who the old dude was.
See also: Cloris Leachman presenting with the women of Jersey Shore.
Yeeuugh, I’m glad I didn’t watch. Not a single decent winner.
…except after meeting Dave Grohl recently and him being a really nice guy, I feel like I oughta give their video a pass, as stale as the song is. So ok, one passable winner.
I would like to take this moment to remind everyone that the Foo Fighters are AIDS denialists, and that Justin Bieber forgot to thank the holy spirit in his acceptance speech.
I’m gonna need a gif of Rick Ross painting ASAP
Look out, Jaden and Willow Smith. The Beyonce/Jay-Z baby is coming to destroy you.
babeyoncé? jaybeyoncé?
I find the VMAs to be slightly less relevant than the 2011 Horse and Buggy Awards.
I’m assuming it was Gabe that wrote those photo captions, in which case I would like to commend him on a job well done. Well done, Gabe!
Otherwise, I would like to offer my commendation to whomever wrote those photo captions. Great job, you!
There are three things I would like to say about these awards that I’m not going to bother trying to link together with other words.
Fashion > music
“Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.” Christopher Lasch
A more exciting award would have been “Most Contrived” considering Odd Future and Lady Gaga were in the mix.
When going through the pictures, I clicked on one thumbnail thinking “Why is Rachel Maddow at the MTV Video Music Awards?” And then it was a picture of Justin Bieber. And so I completely agree with the attached blurb.
Lady GaGa = Madonna 2.0 . Nice try, though.
BEST MALE VIDEO:
Justin Bieber
-sick world