Amy's Robot

The second issue of the

The second issue of the hyped magazine Radar hit the stands recently, so I figured it would be worth investigating their difficult sophomore effort.

My summary opinion is this: sure, it's a cross between Vanity Fair and Talk, with a little Spy mixed in, but: it's toothless. The articles just don't dig deep like VF's do, and the satire/sarcasm is not nearly as biting, or interesting, as the glory days of Spy. Still, it's easy to read and discusses a lot of your favorite topics. Details:

• The cover story about America's obsession with "B-List" celebrities -- the Hiltons, anyone who has ever been on a reality show, Lara Flynn Boyle, etc -- doesn't really contribute anything new to celebrity science. The thesis of the article (which it took me a while to find) is that because of all the TV channels in existence nowawdays, programmers have to fill them up with something -- anything -- so they "elevate the formerly unfabulous (or more often once-but-no-longer-fabulous) into prominence." Hmm. Is that the real reason we care about the Baywatch girls or Emilio Estevez or Justin Guarini? Because there has to be something on? I don't think so. I think, maybe, B-listers linger in our imaginations for a variety of reasons, the two most common being: "they used to be famous" and (lately) "that could be me." All these TV shows that need to be filled with B-listers are a symptom, not a cause, of our fascination.

  The article goes on, through endless sidebars, to provide an overly-elaborate taxonomy of celebrity, based entirely on the construct of "A-list", "B-list", and "C-list". The lists provoke no response in me besides, "Yeah, so." We already know that Adrien Brody and Latifah are on their way up, Sheryl Crow's on her way down, and Kevin Costner is already "outcast". The sidebars, which go into far more excruciating detail than I just did, serve merely as margin fillers and don't state anything that isn't obvious to the magazine's target audience. So, their only purpose must be to be "cute", since they evoke a "that's for sure" response from the reader. Is that what captures the attention of people reading this mag? I don't think it is.

  An interesting point the article makes is that B-list celebrities expend far more energy getting attention and talking to press/fans/everyone than A-listers. One publicist points out that it may do your even more good to have a B-lister there instead of an A-list celeb, because the B will spend a lot of time talking to attendees and media, thereby getting you the attention you want.

  The one entertaining portion of this feature is called "Celebrity Face-Off: A vs. B", in which people posing as personal assistant to Gwyneth Paltrow and Melissa Rivers attempt to wrangle perks from Gucci, Yankee Stadium, and the New York Stock Exchange. The Spy-style transcripts of their conversations with the reps at these places are funny, as the reps try to be polite to Melissa's "assistant" and are wildly sycophantic to Gwyneth's. Still, the whole thing has the flavor of something we've all been drowning in lately -- practical joke shows, like Ashton's thing on MTV, Jamie Kennedy, and Crank Yankers.

• The other major article in the issue deals with Bill Clinton's post presidency. This article's thesis is that Bill is concerned with his legacy, but is undermining himself by hanging out with celebrities instead of world leaders, even at policy-related events. Jake Tapper, a very talented reporter, wrote the article, but it still lacks both the depth and the incisiveness of his reporting for Salon, especially his older pre-Bush-presidency stuff. In the end, it isn't really surprising to learn that Bill spends a lot of time hanging out with Kevin Spacey or whoever...we see it in the NY Post every week anyway. Jake did manage to get an email interview with the former prez, but he quotes from it only briefly. An email interview, by itself, may have been more interesting than a full feature on BC's post-presidential life. I felt short-changed after reading the article.

• Elsewhere in the issue, Camille Paglia and the magazine's editor, Maer Roshan, interview Matt Drudge, who, it turns out, makes at least $900,000 a year. Although Drudge says some weird stuff about abortion (which has been reported elsewhere), most of the interview is everyone sitting around sucking each other's cocks. I mean seriously, I don't think anyone offers any critical analysis of Drudge whatsoever, and Drudge repeatedly flatters Camille and seems overly-chummy with Roshan. Give me a break. Get a hotel room, you know?

• A piece about the bad boys of hip-hop is equally lifeless. There's feuding in hip-hop lately? Oh, really? Russell Simmons is trying to broker peace? Oh, really? Wow.

• Also flat and un-new is a piece about IM and how sometimes IM doesn't really convey people's true emotions, or sometimes IM really conveys people's true emotions. Wake me when it's over.

• The issue's most interesting piece concerns Joe Francis, the 30-year-old creator of the Girls Gone Wild video series. It had been reported in the mainstream media a few weeks ago that he ran into some trouble with the law, for filming under-aged girls. This article gives lots of details about that incident, his meteoric rise, celebrity (B-list, alas!) connections, and fabulous wealth. I was stunned by how wealthy this guy is. It's a $90 million/year business. He owns two private jets! Remember that Ashton Kutcher/Colin Hanks flight-scare a few months ago? That was on one of his planes. The appeal of this article is that it takes something everyone is familiar with, and tells you the story behind it, and it's an interesting story. It's like the E! True Hollywood story of Three's Company. It is, by its nature, compelling, but you don't realize it until the story begins.

• The movie reviews in the back are funny, even if they haven't seen the movie yet. The music reviews need work.

• The rest of the issue -- fashion spreads, reporting on minor trends, investigation/profile pieces, etc -- is basically a flat imitation of VF and isn't really worth discussing.

Despite it's bloodlessness, the magazine has potential. They just need to flesh out their reporting and come up with some original angles. Radar knows its readers are relatively with it, so it needs to treat them as such.

categories:
posted by adm at 2:04 PM | #