Let me see if I understand the rules: If you're an American celebrity, it's permissible to criticize the president, but not if you do it overseas (see: Dixie Chicks). Now, it appears, there's a converse rule: It's also not permitted for a foreign celebrity to come to our shores and criticize our president and tell us how to vote. Judging by the firestorms that have erupted on our comment boards (here and here), that's the gist of the complaint against VMA host Russell Brand (pictured) for his blunt political advocacy during his opening monologue and throughout last night's show. In particular, he urged Americans to vote for Barack Obama and called George W. Bush a "retarded cowboy" who, in the U.K., wouldn't be trusted with even a pair of scissors. (Doesn't he know that you can't say "retarded" in this country anymore?) The anti-Brand complaint seems to be: You have no right to come over here from Limeyland to tell us how to vote or to mock our president -- that's our job. Then again, many commenters thought Brand was hilarious and spoke truth to power.
Brand also courted controversy by repeatedly making fun of the Jonas Brothers' virginity pledges (and using them as an excuse to make teen pregnancy jokes about Bristol Palin and her fiancee). He issued a sort of non-apology apology about that later in the show, as if someone had twisted his arm backstage, but then threw in an R. Kelly joke, as if to say he wasn't repentant at all. Finally, in stepping on Robert Pattinson's introductory remarks, he alienated untold numbers of loyal Twilightfans.
Now, while I actually agree with most of what Brand said about politics, even I thought his remarks were tacky. So were his jibes at the Jonas Brothers (though Jordin Sparks' response, that promise rings are okay because "not every guy and a girl wants to be a slut," was equally tacky). Still, complaining about tackiness at an MTV production is as futile as complaining about lip-synching or product placement. And Brand's political remarks seemed to play well in the room. Which is why I predict that his controversial emceeing turn may actually have done him more good than harm.
Brand has a history of destroying his career through his own outrageous behavior, and if public sentiment is any guide, he could have done it again last night. But the Hollywood types in attendance on the Paramount lot last night seemed to enjoy him, and their opinion may matter more than ours in terms of his job prospects. Besides, last night's VMAs were as mediocre as ever, but no one can stop talking about Brand, who two days ago was a virtual unknown in America. He'll certainly be a solid test case for the theory that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Tell us, PW-ers, did Brand commit career suicide last night, or will his controversial performance serve as the calling card that lands him bigger and better gigs on this side of the pond?
Don Imus is in hot water again because of an on-air comment about race. On the jock's Monday morning radio show, sports announcer Warner Wolf was telling Imus about the long rap sheet on Dallas Cowboys cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones. After hearing about his six arrests since being drafted out of Tennessee in 2005, Imus' first question was, "What color is he?" Wolf said Jones is African American and Imus responded, "There you go. Now we know." Given that this exchange came just six months after Imus' return to radio after being fired from MSNBC and CBS radio over his infamous "nappy-headed ho's" comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team, Imus' critics are none too pleased; Rev. Al Sharpton called the radio host's latest remarks ''disturbing,'' and Jones himself said he would pray for Imus.
Imus responded to the hullabaloo by saying that what he meant was that Jones is being picked on because he's black, a comment that seems to satisfy his new employers at WABC and Citadel Broadcasting Corp. Vice President Phil Boyce says it's unlikely that any action will be taken against Imus, who went on the air this morning and said he was trying to "make a sarcastic point" with his remarks. "What people should be outraged about is that they arrest blacks for no reason," he said. "I mean, there's no reason to arrest this kid six times."
Still, even if we grant that Imus isn't stupid enough to make another blatantly racist comment on-air so soon after the Rutgers remarks, how did the guy manage to take the single fact that Jones is black and extrapolate that the athlete's legal troubles must be a result of society picking on him because of that? Imus will probably be let off with a hand slap this time around, his fans chalking up the incident to overreaction by Sharpton and members of the media. But it's hard not to read something more into it. Regardless of what Imus "meant" with the Jones comment, his first reaction to hearing about the athlete's criminal record was to ask about his skin color. Perhaps the radio host's issues with race are just too ingrained for him to restrain himself in casual conversation, and perhaps it's time for him to hang up his hat for good. What do you think?
So, according to this article in Federal Computer Week, Sen. Joe Lieberman has urged YouTube to pull down videos posted by Islamist terrorist groups, as well as to tighten its submission policies. And YouTube has politely told the senator to go stuff it. Say, did you even know that there were terrorist videos on YouTube? My favorites include the one where the baby panda sneezes so hard it explodes, the one where a training camp full of terrorists dances in formation to Michael Jackson's "Beat It," and the one with that song "Chocolate Rain of Death." Of course, watching these viral vids may infect you with the urge to take up arms against the government and your fellow citizens, but that's a small price to pay for free streaming entertainment.
Heh. If there's any video I'm worried about that could encourage terrorism, it's the one below. A pampered Hollywood starlet being chauffeured around, having her hair and makeup done, snapping gum, being nuzzled by Salman Rushdie, and destroying a perfectly good Tom Waits song — why, it's enough to make anyone hate America.
Last fall, A&E indefinitely suspended production of Dog the Bounty Hunter after a recording surfaced of its star, Duane "Dog" Chapman (pictured), spewing racist insults. Good call. (The extremely NSFW clip in question is here.) But hey, turns out by "indefinitely suspended" they meant "a few months' vacation and then we're back," because A&E just confirmed that they're airing a new season of Dog's reality show this summer. Excuse me, what?
Look, I get that Dog apologized. Maybe he's even telling the truth when he says he's a really nice, tolerant guy who just happened to use a vile slur on tape that one time. But does he really deserve to stay on the air after making that kind of mistake? Couldn't A&E find any telegenic bail bondspeople who don't say disgustingly hateful things in their free time? (Because, y'know, they couldn't do without a bounty hunting show for long — A&E stands for "Arts & Entertainment & Also Some Bounty Hunting," after all.) Meanwhile, I hope this flack's boss gave him a healthy bonus for making it through this quote with a straight face: "Said A&E spokesman Michael Feeney, 'It's not about ratings.... We know his heart. We know him and know he's not a racist.'" You tell me. Is there any conceivable reason other than ratings that could have inspired the network to hold on to Dog?
Why all the haterade poured on Sunrise? The 1927 silent classic was the target of a slur uttered by Cameron Diaz at this year's Oscars (in patter written by someone else), and now, it's getting slagged by Tom O'Neil at the Los Angeles Times' Gold Derby blog. Oscar expert O'Neil writes that he finally has seen Sunrise, which shared the first Best Picture Oscar with Wings in 1928, and he doesn't think it's all that. He slams its two-dimensional characters and thin plot and finds it not nearly as exciting as Wings, which had some thrilling aerial dogfight sequences.
Now, O'Neil is a fine awards-show historian and oddsmaker, but he reveals in this post that he's no movie critic. Sunrise does indeed have archetypal characters (they don't even have names) and minimal plotting because it's a freakin' parable. Sounds obvious, but it's a point that apparently eluded O'Neil. Sunrise isn't about plot and character, it's about intense human passions (love, betrayal, homicidal frenzy, mercy, redemption, reconciliation). It's also about the pleasures and terrors of modernity, the tension and uncertainty of an uncomplicated pastoral past giving way to an exciting but chaotic urban future. Mostly, it's about director F.W. Murnau's ability to convey complex emotional states through gorgeously realized silent black-and-white images. True, there are no airplane battles, but to dismiss Sunrise for that reason is like saying Monet's a dull artist because waterlilies and haystacks bore you.
I have nothing against challenging the conventional wisdom, but sometimes, that wisdom is conventional for a good reason. Elsewhere in the post, O'Neil praises The Crowd, another acknowledged masterpiece of 1927 that got robbed at the Oscars. So I know he cares about history, context, and quality filmmaking. I don't think he's furthering any of those causes with a gratuitous, uninformed rant about a movie that should be on the must-see-before-you-die list of everyone who cares about film.
I've decided not to vote for Barack Obama, now that I've learned from this informative interview with presidential pundit Snoop Dogg that the candidate's campaign is actually funded by the KKK. Oh, I know it sounds ludicrous, and I realize that it's curious that Snoop didn't mention it during his recent political chat with Larry King, and I know Obama has categorically denied it, but still, who you gonna believe: a politician, or the Constitutional scholar who penned this treatise on First Amendment free speech rights (specifically, defending the right of rappers to use words like 'bitch" and "ho")? I don't know, by the way, whether it's also true that Hillary Clinton's campaign is secretly funded by a shadowy organization of male chauvinists, or that John McCain's is secretly funded by hippie peaceniks, but I'm sure Snoop will investigate those topics next, and I breathlessly await his report.
1) Two weeks after Jay Leno's cringeworthy interview with Ryan Phillippe, in which he asked the actor to relive his earliest gig (as a gay teen on One Life to Live) by offering the camera his "gayest look" (see clip below), the Tonight host has issued an apology to gay people and whoever else was offended. Which is nice, but Leno's done this before (just a couple years ago) and may well do it again, given the opportunity. Dude's giving up his chair to Conan in a year; what's he got to lose? Kudos to Avenue Q playwright Jeff Whitty, who first confronted Leno this time (and two years ago, as well), but it seems doubtful that anything is going to change, or that any Leno fans who were truly outraged will do anything as drastic as switch allegiance to Letterman.
2) A few days after New York magazine's film critic David Edelstein peed on the fresh grave of director Anthony Minghella, Edelstein is apologizing, sort of. He essentially suggested that, after Minghella's brilliant, personal, small-scale first film Truly Madly Deeply, Minghella devolved into a middlebrow hack who made overrated Oscar-bait movies (The English Patient, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Cold Mountain), for which devolution Edelstein blamed the heavy hand of then-Miramax co-chief Harvey Weinstein. In his apology, Edelstein's not backing down from his opinion of Minghella's work, but he's sorry for blaming Weinstein, though he insists that the famously arm-twisting mogul did not twist his arm to wrest this mea culpa.
Now, reasonable people can disagree on the merits of Minghella's work (if anything, argues EW's Mark Harris, Minghella didn't get enough credit for the careful crafting of his movies), and a lot of folks (a la Seinfeld's Elaine) really didn't get The English Patient and found it long-winded and boring. Of course, that's another argument against Edelstein's earlier thesis that "Harvey Scissorhands" snipped Minghella's work too eagerly in the editing room. So what Edelstein's concession seems to say is: Sorry, Harvey, that I blamed you for your recently deceased friend's hackery; apparently, he became a hack all by himself. That's supposed to sound less rude and insulting?
UPDATE: And now, it's time for my own apology, to David Edelstein, who, in the comments below, writes that I have mischaracterized his initial article and accused him of saying something he explicitly did not say. I apologize for my use of the words "hack" and "hackery," which overstate Edelstein's description of what he sees as the decline in the quality of Minghella's post-Truly work. I should have taken him at his word that he did not mean to go so far as to call Minghella a hack, just as I am willing to take Edelstein's word that no Weinstein arm-twisting prompted his apology. By the way, no arm-twisting prompted mine, either.
My friend Ginny was walking around New York's Chinatown the other day, where she stumbled upon a few posters calling 21, released today in theaters, racist. Why? Because the movie is based on a true story about sly MIT students who use their card-counting skills — and, as it happens, non-white profile — to swindle casino authorities out of millions of dollars. In a stroke of magic, Hollywood has these Asian students resurfacing as box office-friendly leads Jim Sturgess and Kate Bosworth (pictured), whose undeniable star quality is Sony's way of hedging its bet.
Having watched the film, I was a bit taken aback. But then I realized that a lack of presence is just as offensive as an overtly stereotypical one, as the near-400 members of this Facebook group cry. "Tell Hollywood that
it's okay to portray Asian-American men in lead roles as
three-dimensional characters with personalities, feelings, and a sense
of humor. You know. Regular people. Is that too much to ask for?"
Hey, kids, who wants to emulate the torturers in Funny Games and inflict (virtual) mayhem on your nearest and dearest? Now you can, thanks to this Web widget that allows you to send personalized threatening videos and phone calls from the movie's villains (Michael Pitt, pictured, and Brady Corbet) to your friends and neighbors.
Yeah, i know, making the viewer feel a queasy, voyeuristic complicity with the captors is the point of the movie in the first place, but does this funny game go too far, or am I being unusually squeamish? After all, you may have been willing to pay good money to feel browbeaten by the movie, but the unsuspecting naifs at the other end of your e-mail have not.
Guess the Oscar victory curse is starting early for Marion Cotillard, who is already facing backlash and demands that she return her statuette — not for anything she's done on screen, but for unearthed comments from an old interview in which she suggested that the World Trade Center collapse was engineered by its owners and was not the work of terrorists, and that the 1969 moon landing never happened. It doesn't look like the controversy is going away anytime soon, since Cotillard (via her agent) is refusing to apologize and notes that there are plenty of other places besides America where she can find film work. (Shades of Spinal Tap's manager insisting that the cancellation of a Boston gig is no big deal because "it's not a big college town.")
Now, as someone who was in New York on 9/11, yeah, I do find such comments offensive, but I'm satisfied to chalk them up to stupidity rather than malice. Won't stop me from going to see Cotillard's next movie. If every star who spouted 9/11 conspiracy theories were drummed out of showbiz, Charlie Sheen would be out of a job. So would Rosie O'Donnell. (Oh, wait...) And if everyone in Hollywood who ever did or said something that was stupid or offensive (to someone) were forced out of work, the only performer left standing would be Elle Fanning. Celebrities have the right to shoot their mouths off, and so do you. Have at it.
Last night, I was the victim of an unprovoked assault on my senses. Mainly my eyes and ears suffered, but after the attack, I found that I'd lost my appetite, too. The perp in this case was Bear Grylls, and the weapon was a commercial for his extreme wilderness reality series, Man Vs. Wild.
I've seen some nasty things in horror movies over the years, but I kid you not, the Wes Cravens of the world have nothing on Discovery Channel's ad department. The most horrific moment arrives at the 17-second marker, when Grylls bites the head off the nice little froggie (pictured just before his demise, at left). Of course, my morbid sense of duty forces me to share the experience with all of you. Watch the video by clicking here -- that is, if you don't mind fasting for the next 24 hours.
Juno, Juno, Juno. Everywhere I turn these days, someone's raving about Juno. It's the movie of the season! It's going to be this year's Little Miss Sunshine! Ellen Page is destined for great things! Diablo Cody!
Well, you know what, people? I'm afraid to see Juno. And I'm scared to death of Ellen Page. I'd go so far as to admit that I harbor something of an irrational hatred toward her (though I'm sure she's a lovely human being). Because roughly eight months ago, I made the mistake of putting Hard Candy in my Netflix queue.
Here's the premise: A 14-year-old (Page, pictured) begins an online flirtation with a 32-year-old man (Patrick Wilson) that ultimately results in a face-to-face date and an eventual trip to his home, where she decides to expose him for the potential pedophile that he is. Great. Fine. Sounds promising. Only it isn't. Because--spoiler alert!--the scary-smart teenager is so hellbent on punishing her would-be suitor that she eventually ties him up and begins a sick, twisted game of psychological and physical torture—wait, she can't really be cutting his balls off, can she?!??!—that wants to be perversely entertaining but is instead morally repulsive, ideologically empty, and utterly disgusting. Page gives a bravura performance, no doubt, but Candy is so void of any ultimate meaning—and its so-called "protagonist" such an unlikable sadist—that I actually found myself rooting for the poor bum that she tied up and tortured! Thanks, Hollywood. First I cheered on Miss Mona when I was four years old, and now I'm sympathizing with pedophiles. Once again, you've screwed up my moral compass.
I finished Hard Candy--maybe I'm a sadist, too? or a masochist?--but I couldn't throw it back soon enough. In fact, I think I may have run three blocks to the nearest mailbox just to get it out of my house that very afternoon. And I know what you're thinking: You're the idiot who rented it, Nicholas. Live with the fact and get over it. But I can't. Because I want to love Ellen Page. And more than that, I really want to see Juno. Like, bad. And I can't stop worrying that the minute Ellen Page pops up onscreen lookin' all cute, I'm going to be unable to refrain myself from jumping out of my seat in a fit of fear, screaming "AAAAHHH IT'S THAT HATEFUL GIRL FROM HARD CANDY!!!" all the way to the theater exit.
Your turn to confess: Which movie do you regret putting in your Netflix queue, and how did it screw you up?
Have you seen the poster for the new Alvin and the Chipmunks film (due Dec. 14), starring CG rodents and Jason Lee's giant head? I'd just like you to take a minute and soak that image in for a bit. Then, give a little thought as to what the marketing idea-session probably sounded like:
BOSS: How do we make a 50-year-old franchise relevant to today's kids?" Anyone? [Ponderous silence] AMBITIOUS UNDERLING: What if we made them, you know, B-Boys? B-Munks. Kids like hip-hop culture, right? BOSS: Good idea, Ted. If Warner can make Ludacris into one of Santa's elves, then we can make LL Cool J a chipmunk.
And the trailer is something else entirely. (Watch it after the jump, then come back and share your astonishment.)
Home
Let me see if I understand the rules: If you're an American celebrity, it's permissible to criticize the president, but not if you do it overseas (see: Dixie Chicks). Now, it appears, there's a converse rule: It's also not permitted for a foreign celebrity to come to our shores and criticize our president and tell us how to vote. Judging by the firestorms that have erupted on our comment boards (here and here), that's the gist of the complaint against VMA host Russell Brand (pictured) for his blunt political advocacy during his opening monologue and throughout last night's show. In particular, he urged Americans to vote for Barack Obama and called George W. Bush a "retarded cowboy" who, in the U.K., wouldn't be trusted with even a pair of scissors. (Doesn't he know that you can't say "retarded" in this country anymore?) The anti-Brand complaint seems to be: You have no right to come over here from Limeyland to tell us how to vote or to mock our president -- that's our job. Then again, many commenters thought Brand was hilarious and spoke truth to power.
Don Imus is in hot water again because of an on-air comment about race. On the jock's Monday morning radio show, sports announcer Warner Wolf was telling Imus about the long rap sheet on Dallas Cowboys cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones. After hearing about his six arrests since being drafted out of Tennessee in 2005, Imus' first question was, "What color is he?" Wolf said Jones is African American and Imus responded, "There you go. Now we know." Given that this exchange came just six months after Imus' return to radio after being fired from MSNBC and CBS radio over his infamous "nappy-headed ho's" comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team, Imus' critics are none too pleased; Rev. Al Sharpton called the radio host's latest remarks ''disturbing,'' and Jones himself said he would pray for Imus.
Last fall, A&E 
Why all the haterade poured on Sunrise? The 1927 silent classic was the target of a slur uttered by 
I've decided not to vote for Barack Obama, now that I've learned from 
My friend Ginny was walking around New York's Chinatown the other day, where she stumbled upon a few posters calling 
Hey, kids, who wants to emulate the torturers in 
Guess the Oscar victory curse is starting early for Marion Cotillard, who is already facing 
Last night, I was the victim of an unprovoked assault on my senses. Mainly my eyes and ears suffered, but after the attack, I found that I'd lost my appetite, too. The perp in this case was Bear Grylls, and the weapon was a commercial for his extreme wilderness reality series, 
Juno, Juno, Juno. Everywhere I turn these days, someone's raving about Juno. It's the movie of the season! It's going to be this year's Little Miss Sunshine! Ellen Page is destined for great things! 
Have you seen the poster for the new Alvin and the Chipmunks film (due Dec. 14), starring CG rodents and Jason Lee's giant head? I'd just like you to take a minute and soak that image in for a bit. Then, give a little thought as to what the marketing idea-session probably sounded like: 
