Too-Real Cartoons Capture The ‘Weird,’ Gross Sides Of Motherhood

When Corinne de Vries became pregnant with her first child, the Dutch blogger was struck by the way her life changed. 

“I entered an entire new world, where people used words I didn’t know, where my body changed and where, all of a sudden, I got to take care of a very dependent human being,” de Vries told HuffPost.

To capture this major life change, the mom teamed up with artist and fellow parent Ingebritt ter Veld to illustrate the strange, surprising and all-too-real aspects of pregnancy and motherhood.

“I wanted to show in a funny way what happens to you when you become a mother,” explained de Vries, whose son Jaron will celebrate his first birthday in a few weeks.

When de Vries met ter Veld, the artist was pregnant with her daughter Juun, who is now 6 months old. As they stayed in touch and talked about “all the weird things we had experienced,” Ingebritt turned those situations into funny cartoons. 

The illustrator told HuffPost her favorite cartoon is “Expand & Deflate.”

“Motherhood is beautiful and really hard at the same time,” said ter Veld. “You cannot imagine how it will be, nobody can explain it. Your whole life is turned upside down, your body changes a lot. That makes me insecure ― and I’m sure I’m not the only one ― and at the same time I’m discovering that I’m capable of doing so much more than I thought I could. Mentally and physically.”

De Vries said her favorite cartoon is the one about breastfeeding, which she believes is a spot-on depiction of the beautiful yet sometimes rather strange experience. Ultimately, the blogger and artist hope the cartoons resonate with their fellow parents. 

“For us, talking to each other, it was really comforting to know that the things we’ve experienced aren’t weird, but that every mother has had those experiences,” said the blogger. “We hope other parents will recognize the situations and that they’ll know we all have the same struggles. It’s good to know you’re not the only one dealing with things like sleep deprivation, hair loss or leaking breasts.”

She added, “That makes it easier to accept it and to talk about it: You don’t have to be ashamed about something that’s actually very normal. And humor is always a very good way of dealing with something difficult or something weird. It helps to see these things in perspective.”

Keep scrolling to see more all-too-real parenting cartoons. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Itatí Cantoral Returns To ‘OITNB’ As Soraya For An Acting Lesson

Soraya Montenegro has returned to Litchfield Penitentiary.

Mexican actress Itatí Cantoral, who brought the telenovela villain to life in the ‘90s mega hit “María la del Barrio,” stars in a promo released Monday for the fifth season of “Orange is the New Black.”

The promotional video, posted on Facebook, begins with Marisol “Flaca” Gonzales finding Cantoral in her bunk. Instead of being terrified by her maniacal laugh and insults, Flaca reveals she is a huge fan and goes to get Maritza.

“No, they won’t hire me this way,” Cantoral says breaking character.

After Maritza tries her best to re-enact the famous “maldita lisiada” scene, Cantoral gives the two a lesson on how it’s done. By the end even Big Boo gets in on the action. 

Cantoral first played Soraya for “OITNB” last summer, ahead of the show’s season 4 premiere. At the time, Netflix told HuffPost the actress’ cameo would be limited to the promotional video and that she would not be a new inmate in the show.  

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

In 2017, Casting A Black Actor Derailed A Staging Of This Famous Play

“I am furious and dumbfounded,” Oregon-based theater producer Michael Streeter wrote on Facebook last week. “The Edward Albee Estate needs to join the 21st Century.”

The short statement ― totaling just over 50 words ― claimed that the estate of the late Pulitzer-winning playwright had withdrawn the rights to his play “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?,” disallowing Streeter from staging the well-known production in Portland. Its reason, according to the post? Streeter had cast a black actor in the supporting role of Nick.

“The Albee Estate called and said I need to fire the black actor and replace him with a white one,” he added. “I refused, of course.”

According to The New York Times, a spokesperson for the Albee estate maintains that it hadn’t exactly withdrawn Streeter’s permission to stage the play ― namely because it hadn’t provided explicit permission to begin with. But the spokesperson did confirm the crux of Streeter’s statement: It indeed objected to the casting of a black actor in the play.

“It is important to note that Mr. Albee wrote Nick as a Caucasian character, whose blonde hair and blue eyes are remarked on frequently in the play, even alluding to Nick’s likeness as that of an Aryan of Nazi racial ideology,” spokesperson Sam Rudy allegedly wrote in a letter to Streeter. “Furthermore, Mr. Albee himself said on numerous occasions when approached with requests for nontraditional casting in productions of ‘Virginia Woolf’ that a mixed-race marriage between a Caucasian and an African-American would not have gone unacknowledged in conversations in that time and place and under the circumstances in which the play is expressly set by textual references in the 1960s.”

“Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf,” a widely adapted play, centers on husband-and-wife duo George and Martha, whose lack of marital bliss becomes the central conflict of a night of drinking with a younger couple, Nick and Honey. Written in 1962, Albee ― known to demand creative control over various productions of his play ― originally conceived the characters as white, including, as Rudy pointed out, a description of Nick that involves the word “blond.”

Streeter, in a subsequent Facebook post, explained his “color-conscious” casting choice further:

I believe casting Nick as black adds depth to the play. The character is an up and comer. He is ambitious and tolerates a lot of abuse in order to get ahead. I see this as emblematic of African Americans in 1962, the time the play was written. The play is filled with invective from Martha and particularly George towards Nick. With each insult that happens in the play, the audience will wonder, ‘Are George and Martha going to go there re. racial slurs?’ There are lines that I think this casting gives resonance to, such as the fact that his (white) wife has ‘slim hips’ and when he says he’s ‘nobody’s houseboy’. He is a biologist and it is suggested that he is looking to make everyone the same. (Nazism and Arianism is implied, but never specifically mentioned.) This could be a reasonable goal or fantasy for an African American biologist in 1962 for the distant future. 

He went on to say that he does “not question the motives of those that made the decision” on behalf of the estate, adding that he believes “they have some fealty to a sense of integrity to Edward Albee’s desires.”

“But I had hoped the negative aspects of Albee would die with him,” he concluded. “All I did was post a very short Facebook rant about my disappointment in their decision. I think they made the wrong one. I think the benefits of casting Nick with an African American Actor outweigh the drawbacks.”

I had hoped the negative aspects of Albee would die with him.

Streeter also acknowledged that the estate had not yet granted him full rights to stage the play at Shoebox Theater, in a production originally scheduled for this fall; rather, his ability to move forward rested on receiving casting approval from the estate. 

The Times noted that Albee had previously issued concern regarding the potential casting of a black actress as Martha, the daughter of a college president: “That would instantly raise a lot of questions, since it’s a totally naturalistic play,” he said. “Is this a black college? Do we have a black president of a white college? Not very likely.” According to The Guardian, Albee also took action in order to halt a version of the play with two gay couples.

The estate’s refusal to grant rights to Streeter has reinvigorated conversations about colorblind and color-conscious casting in theater ― the latter technique being one that was famously employed by Lin-Manuel Miranda’s production of “Hamilton.” Several theater fans even remarked on seeing “Virginia Woolf” with actors of color before.

Streeter himself wondered whether or not the casting of an interracial couple in particular was the sole reason for the estate refusing to grant rights. “I think if I had proposed an all black cast they may have been more open to approving it,” he wrote. Still, the estate’s reasoning fell flat for many.

“The reasoning, if that’s quite the word, of the Albee estate doesn’t seem to be simple racism,” Scott Simon explained on NPR. “It sounds like convoluted racism.”

“This is terrible,” journalist Mark Harris wrote on Twitter. “I don’t know if this reflects Albee’s wish. If it does, that wish should not have survived him.”

The husband of the actress originally cast as Martha in Streeter’s production took to Facebook to post his reaction, too:

“While we are Whitewashing our movies and pop culture on a daily basis (Emma Stone as Native Hawaiian in ‘Aloha,’ Zach McGowan as a native Hawaiian, David Carradine as a Chinese man in ‘Kung Fu’?! and how about JESUS CHRIST as a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, white guy?!?!) we have a responsibility to #Resist these weak excuses for allowing racism to exist.”

HuffPost has reached out to Streeter and the Edward Albee Foundation for comment and will update this post accordingly if and when we hear back.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=59087196e4b05c3976825c0d,5727c500e4b016f378934417,58f648cbe4b0da2ff863a6ec,575dbea6e4b0e39a28adea97,57289436e4b096e9f08f08a7

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Watch Shakira Surprise NYC Fans With A Performance In The Park

Shakira recently took quite the musical walk in the park in New York City.

The Colombian superstar surprised fans (including a few New York University graduates) with an impromptu performance in Washington Square Park on Wednesday. Over the weekend, the singer posted a video of the performance on Facebook. 

After greeting fans, Shak sits down with some of her band and prepares to give a live rendition of her hit “Chantaje.” 

“We’re rehearsing for our tour, so we decided this is the perfect environment,” she told fans who gathered around them.

The tour will follow the release of her Spanish-language album El Dorado on Friday. Shakira shared an image of the album cover art on Instagram earlier this month.

Within the last year, Shakira has released several hits and collaborations including “Chantaje” featuring Maluma, the bachata hit “Deja Vu” with Prince Royce and her upbeat single “Me Enamoré” off her new album. 

Watch her surprise performance of “Chantaje” in the video above. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Ellie Kemper Shares First Photo Of Adorable Son

Ellie Kemper has been quite busy lately. In addition to promoting the third season of her Netflix show, “The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt,” the actress is also raising her baby boy.

Kemper and her husband, Michael Koman, welcomed baby James last summer. Appearing on “Today” on Friday, the star publicly shared a photo of her son for the first time. And clearly, he’s a total cutie.

The mom certainly thinks so. “He is the cutest baby on the planet,” she told Sheinelle Jones and Dylan Dreyer.

“Now that I’m a mom, when I see a photo of any baby, I know ― even if I think the baby is just so-so ― you have to react like, ‘That’s the cutest baby I’ve ever seen!’” she added. “Because if anyone doesn’t have that response when I [show them] a picture of James, I’d leave. It would cut!”

Kemper also noted that her son isn’t particularly interested in baby toys at this point, preferring “to tear up paper.”

Speaking with Jimmy Fallon on “The Tonight Show” last week, she noted that James also likes playing with drain plugs, boxes and “the loose skin” on her neck.

As the new mom told Jones and Dreyer: “Motherhood is crazy! Why didn’t anyone tell me?” 

Watch the full video from her “Today” interview to see Kemper’s photo of baby James and hear more of her thoughts on parenthood and this season of “The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

One Of The Biggest Challenges New York Artists Face Is Affording Supplies

To make it as an artist in New York City, you’ll need resilience, passion and a singular creative vision. Oh, and supplies. You’ll probably need some supplies. 

While art supplies are the literal building blocks of many artists’ work, tools like paint, brushes, canvases, paper and clay are becoming harder to afford, especially in a city already as pricey as NYC. A recent report published by the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA) found that 40 percent of New York artists cannot afford art supplies, whatever they may be.

New York has long been mythologized as a home for established and emerging artists, a cultural hotbed that attracts and welcomes creatives from around the country and beyond. Yet due to the high costs of rent, food and pretty much everything else in the city ― not to mention the crippling weight of student loan debt ― young artists are largely unable to afford the materials they need to make work.

This sad statistic falls in line with much of the DCA’s findings, which depict an art world that primarily caters to and is made available to high-income earners. 

“Many low-income community members don’t feel empowered to engage in the variety of arts and culture opportunities in NYC,” one Queens public housing resident is quoted as saying in the report. “More needs to be done to bring the arts to low-income communities, and in bringing low-income community members to prestigious arts and culture institutions.” 

What can be done to ensure that art is a viable career choice for young people without a trust fund? The availability of cheaper rent for apartments and studio spaces seems to be a good starting point. According to the DCA, 90 percent of art and culture workers requested more affordable spaces to live and make work. 

As the report cites, there are approximately 250,000 arts and culture workers currently in NYC, 64 percent of whom moved to the city to pursue professional opportunities in the arts. The annual economic impact of the cultural sector overall is, according to the report, around $130 billion. 

In total, the DCA reached out to 180,000 New Yorkers between September 2016 and April 2017, polling culturally active individuals including artists, teachers, students, leaders of arts organizations and union members both in person and online. The overwhelming conclusion communicated by participants was a broader need for public and accessible arts programming and education spread throughout the five boroughs, especially in under-served and under-represented neighborhoods, ensuring art is indeed for everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.

The DCA is accepting feedback on this report and issues related to it until May 31. “CreateNYC: What We Heard” events will also be held across the city.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=58d51905e4b03692bea4986b,5892091de4b0c90eff0155eb,58f92365e4b06b9cb91527a5,591eff27e4b034684b0bcedd

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

No, Authors Should Not Be Constrained By Gender Or Race In The Characters They Create

This was the BBC.com headline:

Spy Author Anthony Horowitz ‘Warned Off’ Creating Black Character:

Author Anthony Horowitz says he was “warned off” including a black character in his new book because it was “inappropriate” for a white writer. The creator of the Alex Rider teenage spy novels says an editor told him it could be considered “patronising” … Horowitz, who has written 10 novels featuring teenage spy Alex Rider, said there was a “chain of thought” in America that it was “inappropriate” for white writers to try to create black characters, something which he described as “dangerous territory”.

Dangerous territory, indeed.

What are we to make of this? Is an author limited to only writing characters within their race? What about gender? Religion? Age? Ethnicity? Sexual orientation? Where do the boundaries stop?

The old adage, “write what you know,” is a thesis that implies a writer should limit their imagination to the parameters of their own life and experience. But does that maxim still hold true today? Certainly in these times of viral accessibility, contact, research, knowledge, and interaction with people, places, and things far outside our own proximity is as every-day as 24/7 updates from the farthest corners of the globe. Our ability, consequently, to gain perspective sufficient enough to write outside one’s own “house” is not only doable, but, perhaps, universal and insightful, presuming one does it well.

But is it “patronizing”? Are we, as writers, simply not allowed to write outside, say, our culture, regardless of how well we might do it? Has society become so compartmentalized, so hypersensitive, politically correct, and wary of triggering repercussion, resentment, or misinterpretation that reaching beyond our own skin ― literally and figuratively – has become verboten to us as creative artists?

Interesting questions, these; particularly when you consider that men have been writing about women since time immemorial without particular societal concern that they couldn’t possibly know, couldn’t authentically muster, the requisite experiential perspective. It was a given that they could get the job done; accepted without debate. Yet the specificity, the sensitive and unique nature of being female, could be considered as disparate from the male experience as being black is to a white person, but that hasn’t stopped male authors, from Vladimir Nabokov to Wally Lamb, from creating their women of note.

Which is fair. Because the explicit job of an author is to climb inside the experience of LIFE, real or imagined, to tell compelling stories that reflect the incalculable diversity of detail, nuance, thought, and emotion of any variety of people, places, and things. And the creative mind can find and translate authenticity whether writing about Martians, coquettish teens, dogs who play poker, or characters who exactly mirror the author‘s gender or race.

I’ve had my own experience with this interesting conundrum: my last novel, Hysterical Love, was told through the first-person point-of-view of a thirty-three-year-old man, and it goes without saying: I’m not one of those. Yet I felt completely capable of infusing my story with authenticity by relying on my skills of observation, as well as my experiential knowledge as the sister of five men, the mother of a son, the wife of a man; my years on the road with rock bands, and the immersive research of being a close friend to many, many men throughout my life. I’ve been told I pulled it off, even by the men who’ve read it, so my conviction proved out.

But is the divide between cultures, races, wider than that of gender diversity? Does a white writer delegitimize their prose by including black characters? Is the reverse true?

I don’t think so. I think it depends on the writer, the quality of their work; the depth and sensitivity of their depictions. Those are my initial responses. But I also understand the question:

About two years ago I had an article up at HuffPost titled, “No, White People Will Never Understand the Black Experience,” a piece that became a flashpoint for much conversation on the topic of race. It was written in response to events of the time, particularly the egregious injustice of Sandra Bland’s arrest and subsequent (and inexplicable) jailhouse death, and the cacophony that arose amongst, amidst, and between parties on both sides of the racial divide as a result. My own thesis, my perspective on the tangible limitations we each have in perceiving and assessing the realities of life outside ourselves, is made clear by the title alone. But while there’s obviously much more to that debate, here and now we’re discussing the issue as it relates to the job of being an author and I have some specific thoughts on that.

Inspired by the many responses and conversations that ensued after the aforementioned article, as well as others written on the topic of racial conflict, bias, and injustice, I took one of the stories referenced, about an interracial couple’s experiences with police profiling, and developed it into a character-driven novel called A NICE WHITE GIRL, a title that reflects commentary made within some of the conversations I had.

This “sociopolitical love story” is told through the intertwining points-of-view of a black man and white woman dealing not only with pushback to their new and evolving relationship, but the ratcheting impact of police profiling that ultimately leads to a life-altering arrest. It’s a story that’s human, gut-wrenching, and honest, built on the foundation of my own experiences in a long-term interracial relationship earlier in my life, as well as journalistic research and interviews, personal interactions, even friendships with members of the black community. Given a commitment to creating the characters outside my demographic as authentically and sensitively as I possibly could, without watering them down or pandering to political correctness, I believe I served both my story and its cultural demands well. Did I?

Every author relies on, taps into; mines the wealth of thought, opinion, perspective, and acculturation of their own unique life experience. Certainly that’s true. But as artists, as observers and chroniclers of life by way of prose, we go beyond that pool of reference. We reach out, we expand; we explore plot lines and include characters that stretch our imagination, that dig deep into worlds, events and experiences, imagined or real, that can pull us onto less traveled roads that might demand the challenge of research, of specific observation, even outside consultation. We take these extra steps, even for fiction, because we want to infuse our work with inherent realness. Particularly when writing characters outside our culture. That was certainly the demand I faced when embarking upon this latest novel.

But I am a white woman who’s written a book with a black male character, inclusive of his mother, his sister, and various friends. I’ve depicted their family life, their interactions, relationships, thoughts and feelings. Do I not have the creative right to do that? Will I be seen as patronizing, insensitive, off base, and inappropriate? Will this make my book too controversial for representation, for publishing, for sale? Will it garner derision and disdain from members of the black community? Even members of the white community who may resent the harshness with which I depict some of the police?

I don’t know. Maybe. But it was a story I felt passionate about, compelled to write; that took the many debated aspects and elements discussed in my articles and put them into fictional form, with imagined characters who embodied and borrowed from people I knew, from conversations I’d had, from ideas, agendas, politics, and passions that had been conveyed to me by real people expressing essential and sometimes controversial perspectives. I was determined to honor them by candidly, honestly, and without apology, telling the story.

But perhaps, as Anthony Horowitz was told, I’m entering territory that is off-limits, that puts me at odds with those who might frame me as presumptuous and patronizing. “A nice white girl” who’s stepped outside of culturally acceptable boundaries.

I hope not, because I, like Mr. Horowitz, see that as “dangerous territory.”

Just as brilliant male authors have gorgeously written female protagonists; as female novelists have conjured male characters ringing with truth; as writers of one ethnicity have honestly depicted another; as fabulists have invented entire worlds of imagined wonders, authors must be limited byNOTHING. Not a thing. They must be free to create without fear of cultural naysaying, societal judgment, threat of reprisal, or the discomfort of crossing cultural boundaries.

The only mandate to which they’re obligated is GOOD WRITING. Writing with wit and clarity. Honesty. Authenticity. Sensitivity and depth. Engaging prose, compelling plots, and visceral emotion. And, if need be, if determined helpful, the use of “sensitivity readers” who can ascertain if the writer got the cultural references right.

But just as Idris Elba could certainly make magic as James Bond, as Anthony Horowitz could create an intriguing black spy for his books; as I can write characters both male and of a culture outside my own, so must every author of merit and worth be allowed to view the entire panoply of life as fuel for their imagination. Anything else is antithetical to the mission of art… and stymying art serves no one. Not the writer, not the reader, not the myriad members of our diverse world hungry for stories that reflect their lives. Art is imagining; creating, mirroring, and provoking… all of which can and must be achieved by artists free to explore without the limiting effect of creative and cultural boundaries.

Photo by Anete Lusina @ Unsplash

___________________________________________________________

Follow Lorraine Devon Wilke on Facebook, Twitter and Amazon. Details and links to her blog, photography, books, and music can be found at http://ift.tt/15Nf335.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Cher Makes Us ‘Believe’ At The Billboard Music Awards

The spirit of the late ‘90s was alive and well at the Billboard Music Awards on Sunday night. 

Shortly after Celine Dion sang her 1997 hit “My Heart Will Go On,” Cher killed it onstage with her 1998 No. 1 “Believe.” She then turned back time to 1989, performing “If I Could Turn Back Time,” in what appeared to be the same outfit from her legendary music video filmed aboard the USS Missouri.

Everyone was taken with Cher’s performance, even Dion: 

After her two powerhouse performances, Cher was presented with the Icon Award by Gwen Stefani. 

“So, I’ve wanted to do what I do since I was 4 years old, and I’ve been doing it for 53 years,” Cher said as the crowd broke out in applause. “That’s not an applause thing. I’m 71 yesterday. And I can do a 5-minute plank. OK? Just saying.”

She continued, “I want to thank my mom. When I was really young my mom said, ‘You’re not going to be the smartest, you’re not going to be the prettiest. You’re not going to be the most talented. But you’re going to be special. And then when I met Sonny [Bono], he said the same thing. And there was really nothing about me that lead anyone [else] to believe that I was going to be special.”

Cher wrapped up her speech by crediting a lot of her success to plain old luck.

“I work with people you might not know, but they are like the greatest people in our industry,” she told the crowd. “And I just have to say I think luck has so much to do with my success. I think it was mostly luck and a little bit of something thrown in.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Celine Dion Celebrates 20th Anniversary Of ‘My Heart Will Go On’ With Billboard Award Performance

Celine Dion looked and sounded like an angel ― complete with massive wings ― at the Billboard Music Awards on Sunday night as she performed her smash hit “My Heart Will Go On” from “Titanic” nearly 20 years after the film’s release. 

Dion, who wore a plunging white gown with huge sleeves, sang the ballad while a montage of scenes from the Oscar-winning movie, released in December 1997, played in the background. 

“This song means a lot to me, and it has played such a huge role in my career,” Dion said in a statement when it was announced earlier this month that she would perform the song at the awards. “I’m so grateful to the late James Horner, and to Will Jennings, for writing it and creating the opportunity for me to be part of ‘Titanic,’ an amazing film whose legacy will continue for generations to come.” 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.