Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Does Britney's reality show suck?


Is the Pope Catholic? Is the Democratic party bad at winning elections?

Given how un-newsworthy it is that Mrs. Federline's show (unironically titled "Chaotic") is tragically lame, it's impressive how deeply-felt the reviews are. "Britney's Home Video: Plumbing the Depths" (Washington Post) calls Britney a "smutty-mouthed, pudgy-faced brat" and says the show is "an execrable mess by absolutely any standard." It's more than snarky--it's pissy! And Slate's "Is That All There Is? The Warholian appeal of Britney and Kevin: Chaotic" notes that Britney and Kevin are "both certifiable exhibitionists and phenomenally dull people," and that their show "captures the sheer existential tedium of being a celebrity." As bitchy as an anorexic girl in a candy store! Is it weird that this makes me want to watch it more?


molybdenum1 said...

Not at all, I think. This explains the success of such shows as American Idol, Survivor, all other reality TV, Tom Greene, Punk'd, Jackass, and anything on daytime on the networks that does not involve news. I almost feel sorry for Britney, but then I think that she makes more money in a month than I will see in my entire life, and then I get angry. Then i eat something, and feel a little tired, but also full. Then I want to watch TV and scratch the cat. Then I feel like checking my email again, and then it is time for sleep.

What were we talking about?

Toolstein said...

Come now. No need to lump the genius-savantism that is Jackass in with the rest of that drivel.