This week Lindsay Lohan revealed that her unprofessionalism during the shooting of her O! unscripted show was on account of her miscarriage. That truly was shocking, but it also doesn't explain her unprofessionalism in the years prior to her miscarriage.
Ladies, is that like the nuclear option for you? Is that the one thing that any woman can say to justify her behavior and end the conversation about some controversial matter? "I had a miscarriage." (The first nuclear option is "I was raped.") It's like: "I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriage...but you still won the argument. Okay." As much as the feminists want to rise above this towards gender equality, there remains a difference between the genders, which allows for women to have this prerogative; and common decency allows us to give women a pass. There is nothing intellectual or academic about it.
We should take Lohan's word that she did suffer a miscarriage, if only because it would make us look terrible if we accused her of lying about such an awful event. But she will have trouble using it as an excuse for missing some later assignment, of course.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Spider-Man sex scandal vs. Superman sex scandal: Who would win in a fight?
I've never been a fan of real-life heroes--and there's a reason why. In the past month, sex scandals have engulfed two men whose work I've otherwise respected: James Franco and Bryan Singer.
I've always liked James Franco--despite the fact that he was once in a longtime relationship with Marla Sokoloff, whom I really liked. Apparently he never had sex with Lindsay Lohan. He never smoked weed with Seth Rogen (and smoking weed with Seth Rogen seems to be a prerequisite to being Seth Rogen's friend). He is genuinely committed to art and education, as pretentious as that might sometime seem. He doesn't broadcast his sleazy behavior, and despite the fact that he always seems to be squinting, he seems like a good guy and not a Hollywood douche. This non-doucheness has taken a hit with his attempts last night to seduce an almost 18-year-old tourist who was just excited to meet James Franco.
Since then, there has been a full-court press from him to try to make light of it--he doesn't want to seem to be running from it, and that's smart. He went on Live... and SNL to talk about it--"Aren't I wacky? Isn't the Internet wacky? I'm James Franco!" Legally, he might be in the clear, certainly. It's legal in New York state for a man in his mid-30s to have sex with a 17-year-old. (Franco was born and raised in California.) There is a long, should be more shameful history of celebrities having sex with 17-year-olds--Wilmer Valderama, Woody Allen, Jerry Seinfeld. Certainly a precedence for doing it and escaping scrutiny. Morally, however, it raises the question of how young is too young for James Franco? Where does he draw the line?
Then there's the theory that this incident was done to promote his forthcoming indie with Emma Roberts, where he plays a gym teacher who enters into an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old. Appearing to be a shorteyes does not seem to be a good strategy for promotion of a single film, even for a man accustomed to such erraticism in the name of art.
The most realistic explanation was that Franco tried to get with a barely legal girl, and he overestimated how enamored she was with him. She was a fan--but not so much a fan for that. (How much has this worked in the past for him? Normally The Franco gets what he wants.) This girl really just liked his work; she probably grew up watching his movies. Her parents raised her not to have hook-ups with inappropriately older guys--and it's easy to forget how much older Franco really is compared to a teenager. (There's also the issue as to what he would've done if she'd said "sure." I think we can all imagine what he would've done.)
The case against Bryan Singer is much worse--not because he's gay, but because of the sordid nature of the allegations and the allegations of actual sexual contact, not just intended contact. Still, it seems not to be a coincidence that these allegations are surfacing right before the statute of limitations would expire and in the weeks before the biggest movie of Singer's career opens and the premiere of his show Black Box. It seems that, regardless of the truth, the accuser is attempting to maximize any legal settlement. Really, if Singer had been accused of this during last year's Jack the Giant Slayer, rape would've been the second worst thing he was capable of.
Singer has taken the exact opposite tact: He is avoiding unnecessary contact with the press. As a gay man, he must be especially sensitive about allegations that he's also a pervert. The American people have come a long way in accepting homosexuality as normal since the '90s. Time will tell if more men come forward, which will be the best indication as to whether the charges of the Hollywood gay sex parties leading to rape are true. If these allegations are true, I will be reluctant to watch further Bryan Singer movies, not that I wouldn't appreciate the memories that his work has given me in the past.
I've always liked James Franco--despite the fact that he was once in a longtime relationship with Marla Sokoloff, whom I really liked. Apparently he never had sex with Lindsay Lohan. He never smoked weed with Seth Rogen (and smoking weed with Seth Rogen seems to be a prerequisite to being Seth Rogen's friend). He is genuinely committed to art and education, as pretentious as that might sometime seem. He doesn't broadcast his sleazy behavior, and despite the fact that he always seems to be squinting, he seems like a good guy and not a Hollywood douche. This non-doucheness has taken a hit with his attempts last night to seduce an almost 18-year-old tourist who was just excited to meet James Franco.
Since then, there has been a full-court press from him to try to make light of it--he doesn't want to seem to be running from it, and that's smart. He went on Live... and SNL to talk about it--"Aren't I wacky? Isn't the Internet wacky? I'm James Franco!" Legally, he might be in the clear, certainly. It's legal in New York state for a man in his mid-30s to have sex with a 17-year-old. (Franco was born and raised in California.) There is a long, should be more shameful history of celebrities having sex with 17-year-olds--Wilmer Valderama, Woody Allen, Jerry Seinfeld. Certainly a precedence for doing it and escaping scrutiny. Morally, however, it raises the question of how young is too young for James Franco? Where does he draw the line?
Then there's the theory that this incident was done to promote his forthcoming indie with Emma Roberts, where he plays a gym teacher who enters into an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old. Appearing to be a shorteyes does not seem to be a good strategy for promotion of a single film, even for a man accustomed to such erraticism in the name of art.
The most realistic explanation was that Franco tried to get with a barely legal girl, and he overestimated how enamored she was with him. She was a fan--but not so much a fan for that. (How much has this worked in the past for him? Normally The Franco gets what he wants.) This girl really just liked his work; she probably grew up watching his movies. Her parents raised her not to have hook-ups with inappropriately older guys--and it's easy to forget how much older Franco really is compared to a teenager. (There's also the issue as to what he would've done if she'd said "sure." I think we can all imagine what he would've done.)
The case against Bryan Singer is much worse--not because he's gay, but because of the sordid nature of the allegations and the allegations of actual sexual contact, not just intended contact. Still, it seems not to be a coincidence that these allegations are surfacing right before the statute of limitations would expire and in the weeks before the biggest movie of Singer's career opens and the premiere of his show Black Box. It seems that, regardless of the truth, the accuser is attempting to maximize any legal settlement. Really, if Singer had been accused of this during last year's Jack the Giant Slayer, rape would've been the second worst thing he was capable of.
Singer has taken the exact opposite tact: He is avoiding unnecessary contact with the press. As a gay man, he must be especially sensitive about allegations that he's also a pervert. The American people have come a long way in accepting homosexuality as normal since the '90s. Time will tell if more men come forward, which will be the best indication as to whether the charges of the Hollywood gay sex parties leading to rape are true. If these allegations are true, I will be reluctant to watch further Bryan Singer movies, not that I wouldn't appreciate the memories that his work has given me in the past.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Is Katherine Heigl's reputation really worth $6 million?
I've had a thing for Katherine Heigl since Roswell. She was several years older than me, and her breasts made her look like a genius of some kind--possibly a rocket scientist. Contradictory, when she made it big on Grey's Anatomy, I began to lose interest in her, my teen infatuation abated by both the passage of time and the new hype that surrounded her.
Recently the drugstore chain Duane Reade used Heigl's image in an ad without her consent, and Heigl in turn sued--understandably. This begs the question: Is Katherine Heigl's reputation still worth $6 million? If the drug store had done this above board, would Heigl have received $6 million for her endorsement? No, certainly not in 2013. This suit is to make herself look better, reminding us all of the charity set-up in memory of her late brother and that Katherine Heigl still exists.
She is allegedly terrible to work with. She chain smokes. She was allegedly one of the driving forces to get Isaiah Washington fired from Grey's. On the set of Roswell, she was frequently late, missing her call-time intentionally. Not because of some emergencies but because she respected the production so little that she didn't even care to be on time. (This anecdote is from the interview that she gave in a 2006 FHM interview.) She was actually the biggest star on that WB show, it should be noted--having worked with both Gerard Deperdieu and Steven Seagal in Under Siege 2 (no--that was big)--and so it is easy to imagine why she thought she was gracing the teen sci-fi show with her presence. Her mother has been described as terrible too.
Despite Heigl's pluses--her apparently good marriage, her decision to adopt children, her sobriety. She might be totally loyal to her friends like TR Knight and her family (like many Mormons), she still manages to be seen as a pill. She does not work with actors more than once. Her greatest movie--Knocked Up--was derided by her, and she hasn't worked with Judd Apatow since.
The people you meet climbing the ladder of Hollywood success are the people you see during your downfall, and Heigl has been freefalling. This can be summed-up by one damaging assessment: In a 2013 Forbes article, she was linked to both Adam Sandler and Reese Witherspoon as the most overpaid stars in Hollywood. Hollywood will allow any matter of bitchiness or perversion, as long as the talent is commercial or critically successful.
I think a career-revival is possible, though. Yes, her greatest work has since been voice-acting in the animated The Nut Job--although no one sees a talking squirrel movie for Katherine Heigl; they see it because squirrels are awesome. She'll probably be returning to TV in the fall, although returning to TV can be seen as acknowledging defeat--but the low-point was still probably the Nyquil commercial, so the only place from here is up. (Oddly enough, the world didn't need any more Katherine Heigl movies.) What remains of her career is to be seen.
Recently the drugstore chain Duane Reade used Heigl's image in an ad without her consent, and Heigl in turn sued--understandably. This begs the question: Is Katherine Heigl's reputation still worth $6 million? If the drug store had done this above board, would Heigl have received $6 million for her endorsement? No, certainly not in 2013. This suit is to make herself look better, reminding us all of the charity set-up in memory of her late brother and that Katherine Heigl still exists.
She is allegedly terrible to work with. She chain smokes. She was allegedly one of the driving forces to get Isaiah Washington fired from Grey's. On the set of Roswell, she was frequently late, missing her call-time intentionally. Not because of some emergencies but because she respected the production so little that she didn't even care to be on time. (This anecdote is from the interview that she gave in a 2006 FHM interview.) She was actually the biggest star on that WB show, it should be noted--having worked with both Gerard Deperdieu and Steven Seagal in Under Siege 2 (no--that was big)--and so it is easy to imagine why she thought she was gracing the teen sci-fi show with her presence. Her mother has been described as terrible too.
Despite Heigl's pluses--her apparently good marriage, her decision to adopt children, her sobriety. She might be totally loyal to her friends like TR Knight and her family (like many Mormons), she still manages to be seen as a pill. She does not work with actors more than once. Her greatest movie--Knocked Up--was derided by her, and she hasn't worked with Judd Apatow since.
The people you meet climbing the ladder of Hollywood success are the people you see during your downfall, and Heigl has been freefalling. This can be summed-up by one damaging assessment: In a 2013 Forbes article, she was linked to both Adam Sandler and Reese Witherspoon as the most overpaid stars in Hollywood. Hollywood will allow any matter of bitchiness or perversion, as long as the talent is commercial or critically successful.
I think a career-revival is possible, though. Yes, her greatest work has since been voice-acting in the animated The Nut Job--although no one sees a talking squirrel movie for Katherine Heigl; they see it because squirrels are awesome. She'll probably be returning to TV in the fall, although returning to TV can be seen as acknowledging defeat--but the low-point was still probably the Nyquil commercial, so the only place from here is up. (Oddly enough, the world didn't need any more Katherine Heigl movies.) What remains of her career is to be seen.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Arianators vs. McCurdians: Who will win? Ah, I don't care.
Sadly I do care. It's bad enough Ukraine is breaking up--Sam and Cat can't break up! Those two possible teen lesbians need to stay together both for their babysitting business and for Nick's bottom-line. (That's what's the show's about, right? They're lesbians, right?)
McCurdy's PG-rated sexting pics have been cited as a reason, as has the allegation that Grande is paid more than her. It makes sense that Grande would be paid more than her: She has MORE THAN TWICE the Twitter followers, a Grammy nod (she didn't win), her YouTube vids have hundreds of millions of views. She is delightful. Grande has a more successful career ahead of her--not that McCurdy, too, can achieve when she leaves the safety of the Nick network, which looks like it will occur sooner rather than later. (Meanwhile Victoria Justice was spotted on Sunset Blvd, offering handies. Oooooh!!!... She blew her chance at fame.)
Oh, and they're in their 20s! Don't look at me that way!!!
McCurdy's PG-rated sexting pics have been cited as a reason, as has the allegation that Grande is paid more than her. It makes sense that Grande would be paid more than her: She has MORE THAN TWICE the Twitter followers, a Grammy nod (she didn't win), her YouTube vids have hundreds of millions of views. She is delightful. Grande has a more successful career ahead of her--not that McCurdy, too, can achieve when she leaves the safety of the Nick network, which looks like it will occur sooner rather than later. (Meanwhile Victoria Justice was spotted on Sunset Blvd, offering handies. Oooooh!!!... She blew her chance at fame.)
Oh, and they're in their 20s! Don't look at me that way!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)