Beth Mann

“Glee’s” mysteriously shrinking Rachel

The slimming down and sexing up of Lea Michele is another sign that the heartfelt show is losing its warmth

  • more
    • All Share Services

FILE - In this April 12, 2010 file photo, Lea Michele arrives at the "Glee" Spring Premiere Soiree in Los Angeles. Michele is joining the ranks of Brazil's president and Lady Gaga as an honoree in Time magazine's 100 most influential people issue, The Associated Press reports Friday, April 30, 2010. The Time issue, on newsstands now, honors influential artists, heroes, leaders and thinkers. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello, File)(Credit: Chris Pizzello)

When I first watched “Glee,” I felt giddy. Unabashedly expressive, darkly humorous. It was an earnest program with a heart. And yes, I’m talking in past tense. The Hollywood machine ate the show for brunch and bulimically purged it into the pretty mess we now have before us.

Don’t get me wrong — I still watch “Glee.” It features fine writing, fun characters and strong talent. It just got all glossy and perfect on me. And nowhere is this more apparent than with our darling Rachel, played by Lea Michele.

Rachel is the centerpiece of the show. More than an amazing, almost Streisand-level singer, her acting is endearing and accessible, which is no easy feat, since she plays an annoying character: self-serving, narcissistic and occasionally ruthless. But somehow she pulls it off. Or did.

Apparently, they replaced her with another slimmed-down, super-polished Hollywood starlet, who looks like yet another machine-made actress, and just doesn’t have the same effect on me. Consider the person who sang “Don’t Rain on My Parade” in the first season:

 Now compare her with the slip of an actress who posed topless in Marie Claire recently.

Listen, I understand the game: She’s in Hollywood, keeping up with her flying star and getting in touch with her “vegan” side. (Back in the day, we used to call it an “eating disorder” — now you can hide behind the healthier guise of “veganism” to slim down without all that stigma.)

And I don’t really know if she has an eating disorder (though I think once you hit the borders of L.A., one is bestowed upon you, whether you like it or not). But why couldn’t they leave well enough alone? Now, Rachel looks like a prepubescent stickling on the show. Her warm and inviting face has turned Hollywood hollow.

And, of course, like every other female actress, she only has one “stylistic” choice to make: sex up or get out.

When I see so many pouty, preening female celebrities, I wonder if they ever feel silly, playing up sex appeal to almost comical levels. It’s as if they’ve been trained to be on the constant verge of an orgasm. That’s got to be painful to maintain. Come on, already.

Hustler-style “sexiness” is de rigueur. Physical imperfection won’t be tolerated. The machine is churning, keeping us all on the run, literally. If women remain in a constant, agitated state of insecurity, they’re too busy “fixing” themselves to find their real voice.

Rachel was my secret TV heroine. She was supposed to be larger than life, not waiflike. I looked up to her, in that fictional, far-off sense. Rachel wouldn’t have succumbed to this Hollywood assembly-line pressure.

Or perhaps she would have; Rachel is driven to succeed at all costs. If that’s the case, I’ll choose to remember Rachel before she made it big and got small.

But if she gets a nose job, I’m so outta here.

Why I won’t be joining the “Boobquake”

A racy feminist protest against extremist Muslim misogyny quickly devolves into "Girls Gone Wild"

  • more
    • All Share Services

Why I won't be joining the

Over coffee this morning, I saw a few Facebook posts from female friends, excited about showing off some cleavage for “Boobquake” this Monday. While I wanted to be happy about some counterculture movement, this one just made me sigh.

In case you haven’t heard, Boobquake was started by Jen McCreight, a blogger at Blag Hag, in response to an Iranian cleric who recently issued a statement that read:

Many women who do not dress modestly… lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes.

McCreight encourages you (meaning women, of course — men can be the continual spectators) to:

… join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that’s your preferred form of immodesty. With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I’m sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn’t rumble.

It has turned into somewhat of a phenomenon. According to McCreight:

So what started as a joke and somewhat sarcastic reply to the ludicrous notion that women’s immodesty causes earthquakes has now exploded. Seriously, internet, you scare and amaze me sometimes. The Facebook event already has almost 14,000 attendees (and 60,000 invited) in just over 24 hours. The wall is getting comments so quickly that I had to disable Facebook email notifications because my inbox was getting flooded.

I appreciate McCreight’s intentions behind this; she meant it as a feminist response to a ridiculous statement. Unfortunately, it seems to be turning into something else, with many men chiming in, with their “show us your tits” camera-ready attitude. Women on parade again … sigh. Since when did we “stick it to the man” by wearing low-cut shirts or short shorts? When women burned bras back in the day, there was a statement there, full of boldness and righteous anger. This type of happening feels like feminism lite, “cute” feminism or “male-friendly” feminism.

Reviewing the hundreds of comments that continue to pour into the Boobquake Facebook page, many women apologetically replied, “Sorry, I don’t have enough cleavage to show” or “I’m as flat as a board … sorry!” A movement that encourages more body issues! Yay for us.

Women should be able to wear what they want. That’s a given. Women should be able to sexually express themselves how they see fit. Of course. And underneath it all, I guess that was Boobquake’s intention. Unfortunately, we live in a world that sees that kind of freedom of expression as a photo opportunity or another cheap thrill. All parties must be on board and in celebration of the cause in a way that doesn’t include lasciviousness, latent female hatred or sexual over-saturation. If not, then all we’ve got is “Girls Gone Wild” with a cause slapped on it

Continue Reading Close