Sad news from Hollywood today as it is revealed that legendary actor, Paul Newman, has passed away at the age of 83. A screen legend for over 50 years, Newman starred in iconic films such as Cool Hand Luke, The Color of Money, The Hustler, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and The Sting. Even for a film buff such as myself, an actor who is 60 years older than me hardly ever evokes the kind of emotion in a 25 year-old, that I felt this morning. Hit after the jump to find out why Paul Newman will always be more than a legendary actor to me.
In 1963, Newman starred in the film adaptation of Tennessee Williams' Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, with Elizabeth Taylor and Burl Ives, scoring his first of 10 Oscar nominations in doing so. I studied the play in grade 11, when I was seventeen, which was also coincidentally the year when I realized, secretly, after years of being attracted to my own gender, "oh sh!t, I'm gay".
COAHTR is famous for, among many things, its obvious homosexual undertones, centralized around Newman's character, Brick, and his love for his recently-deceased friend Skipper. Even in the film, where the gay theme was toned down significantly, it's still plainly obvious what they were trying to convey with Brick's lack of interest in Maggie the Cat.
Two things happened when I saw COAHTR in drama class that year. The first, was that my feeble 17-year-old brain realized for the first time that yes, even people in 1963 were sexy (and damn, was Paul Newman sexy). The second was that this was a film made in a time when making films about gay characters was forbidden under the Hays Code, much less frowned upon. Yet here was a confirmed straight man (his marriage of over 50 years to Joanne Woodward is the stuff of Hollywood legend), who was willing to portray a gay character. I was terrified of coming out at the time, but what this showed me was that if a straight guy was willing to play gay back in the 1960's, then surely someday I would be able to muster up the courage to truly be myself. I didn't do so until after high school, but it was Paul Newman in COAHTR that first gave me the inspiration, and courage, to do so.
Paul Newman never made his support of the gay community a secret, once stating: “I'm a supporter of gay rights. And not a closet supporter either. From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community. There are so many qualities that make up a human being... by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant.”
When many others in his generation had no qualms about speaking about their hate for gay characters in films (shame on you, Tony Curtis!! And you were in Spartacus!!), it was always refreshing to see an octogenarian who openly supported the gay community. So while many will remember him for his many legendary roles (my personal fave? His Oscar-nominated turn as the stone-cold mob boss in Road to Perdition), I'll remember him for the legendary things he stood for in his own life as well, and what they did for me. And for his awesome salad dressing.
Thanks Paul Newman. May Butch Cassidy ride off into the sunset in peace.
Read more!
So, as noted below, Clay Aiken shocked the world (aka nobody) by coming out on the cover of People magazine this week. First off, congrats to Clay, I guarantee it'll be a sigh of relief to get Perez off your back (although judging from the closet cleaner's site, that doesn't seem to be working). Yet, with another celebrity officially coming out, and using a major publication to do so, one has to start wondering: Does every gay celebrity need to out themselves on the cover of a major magazine? And why are all of those magazines owned by Time Warner? Check out our analysis, after the jump!
"I'm gay".
"Yep, I'm gay".
"Yes, I'm gay".
These were the cover headlines for the three covers featuring Lance Bass, Ellen DeGeneres, and Aiken. Both Bass and Aiken came out on the cover of People magazine, while DeGeneres came out on the cover of Time (which, like People, is owned by Time Warner). Why is it that Time Warner, and most notably People, has become the go-to place if you wanna go from famous, to famous-and-gay?
For every outed celebrity as of late, if you want genuine support and recognition without being hounded minute-by-minute during your outing process, apparently People is the way to go. While they didn't grace the cover to do so, both T.R. Knight and Neil Patrick Harris issued exclusive statements to People before catching the express train to Outville. Yet all this confirms is that People is hungry for good coming out stories, and does nothing to show why gay male celebrities feel the need to use it to vent their feelings - and personal lives.
Let's take a closer look at People magazine. People is a magazine about, well, people. Because that's the case, it often hovers (very) dangerously close to the point of becoming a tabloid, often running stories that are similar to those in paparazzi rags such as Us Weekly and In Touch. The only difference is that People (usually) won't go after a story unless it's true, and often is very capable of creating stories that their readers have a sympathetic pull towards. Because people will believe a story that's on the cover of People, but not Us Weekly, it seems like a smart choice for those who want to come out, and actually be believed.
But this begs the question, why only People? There are several other magazines and publications that have just as much (or even more) journalistic credibility than a borderline gossip rag such as People. Why not release the story to a major newspaper, such as the New York Times? Or how about this: give the interview to a major gay-oriented magazine such as The Advocate, and in doing so possibly enlighten others on several LGBT-oriented issues that would be addressed in that issue?
The main issue with that of course, is the fact that The Advocate doesn't appeal to as broad of a base of readers, so getting the full story out may prove more difficult. But in an age where any mainstream story can be passed around the globe instantaneously via the Internet, news feeds, and various mobile-web devices. Plus, ironically enough, while outing yourself on the cover of a magazine lets the world know you're gay, doing so on the cover of The Advocate may seem "too gay", which is sadly something the mainstream America still isn't ready for. So for a performer who is still looking to have a successful career after coming out, appealing to a broad audience seems like a wise idea, and doing so in People may be the best way to do it.
So I guess People's corner on coming-out stories isn't all bad. But maybe it would be nice for a performer to be able to come out someday without having to have their career saved by gracing the cover of one particular magazine. Until then, Lindsay Lohan, people is waiting for a callback from your publicist.
Read more!
Steven Spielberg has been wanting to make a Tintin feature film since the early 80's, and yet has somehow never found the opportunity to do so. A few years ago, it seemed he found a partner for the project in fellow uber-director Peter Jackson. The deal seemed sealed, with Universal and Paramount co-financing a Tintin trilogy that would use motion-capture technology (much like The Polar Expess and Beowulf).
However, Universal has now balked at the estimated $130 million cost of each film, and is subsequently backing out of its deal with Spielberg and Jackson, leaving both in an odd predicament for the first time: Two very powerful directors with nobody to make their films. While this may come as surprising to many, check after the jump to see why Universal may have made a smart move that wasn't just based on the dwindling U.S. economy.
According to the report, Universal is blaming the economy for dropping out of the deal with Jackson and Spielberg. However, I have a feeling that several other factors may have contributed to the deal-breaker. here's just a few:
1. Lack of Box-Office Pedigree: Spielberg is the only proven box-office draw attached to the projects. While star Thomas Sangster has appeared in films such as Love Actually, he's hardly known at all. His costar, Andy Serkis, may have been in some of the biggest films of the past decade (Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy), but his appearances are always in supporting roles, and never as a leading draw for ticket sales. At least Beowulf had Angelina Jolie, and Polar Express had Tom Hanks. Beyond LOTR, Jackson isn't even a proven draw, as his King Kong remake disappointed commercially in 2005. To sink over almost $400 million into the production of a trilogy without a star brighter than its director seems like a big gamble.
2. How Strong is That Tintin Name?: The last completed Tintin story was published over 30 years ago, with the prime of the series dating back to the early 1950's. How strong and relevent is the Tintin name in today's society? While Spielberg may have found the idea appealing when he was younger, the fact of the matter is that trying to get an 80 year old franchise to appeal to kids and teenagers today is a lot harder than it would have been in 1983, when Spielberg first wanted to film the adaptation. In addition, since their publication, many critics have derided the Tintin franchise for being overly dated, stereotypical, racist, sexist, and homophobic. In fact, I even was forced to read Tintin in university to analyze its racist cultural undertones. While these certainly would not be implied in an actual film, the idea of developing a major film franchise around something that could cause such controversy may have gotten Univseral squirming.
3. Dead-eye Syndrome: While cutting-edge, it has been well-documented that people are weirded out by the uncanny valley shown through motion-capture technology. To put it simple: many viewers who saw Beowulf and Polar Express find the dead-eyed characters downright creepo. While Express eventually became a word-of-mouth Christmas hit, Beowulf and Monster House both disappointed commercially. Furthermore, the cost of these films are incredibly expensive. Combining the cost of producing a motion-capture Tintin trilogy, along with the cost of marketing a Spielberg/Jackson event-sized tentpole film, Universal may have simply seen the film as too risky.
Who knows though, maybe it really is the economy that cause Universal to pull the plug. Regardless of their decision though, as much as a Spielberg-Jackson double whammy sounds tempting, maybe the pair should take the hint, and then collaborate on another dream project, or just abandon the idea altogether for now and focus on their other pet projects. After all, that Lincoln biopic of Spielberg's with Liam Neeson has already been gestating for way too long, and I think I speak for the universe in saying that we want The Hobbit before we have Tintin. Judging from Universal's actions, it looks like Hollywood might feel the same way.
It's been awhile now since Nicole Ritchie got pregnant and put on weight, so I guess everyone had to start looking for someone else to turn into a bulimic wreck. The focus has now been shifted to Shenae Grimes (Annie) and Jessica Stroup (Erin Silver) of the CW's 90210 reboot (what, is AnnaLynne McCord's Naomi an obese cow?). Apparently, the girls are setting a bad example for their young viewers by being too thin, and now rumors are swirling of an intervention being held by the 90210 cast, encouraging them to gain weight. Yes, there are string beans with more meat on them than these girls, but should the focus really be on them? Hit after the jump for who's really to blame.
So yes, the girls of 90210 are too thin. But guess what? SO IS EVERYBODY ELSE ON TV. And in movies. And music. And on Broadway and just about every other kind of performing art. It's been long recognized that the camera adds ten pounds, and so every female who faces a camera these days is rail-thin. These girls are not to blame, it's the industry itself for putting the pressure on the girls (and all women) to be thin. It's no secret that these industries (and the tabloids that follow them) seem to have a secret chart of ideal weights:
Size 00: Too skinny Sizes 0-2: Just right Sizes 3-4: "Curvy" Sizes 5+: Prey for Captain Ahab
So, because the girls of 90210 appear to be on the slimmer side of size 0, the media has allowed them to take up the mantle previously held by Nicole Ritchie and Lindsay Lohan. Now, even stars of other shows are chiming in on it. Recently, Penn Badgley of Gossip Girl told the press that the girls of 90210 should "eat a double cheeseburger". Maybe Badgley should be saying the same thing to his own girlfriend and GG costar, Blake Lively. While Lively isn't quite as thin as the 90210 girls, the perception of "all girls must be skinny" put forth through these TV characters is still personified by Lively's Serena, as well as all of the other girls on GG. And while we're at it, this could have been said to The OC's Mischa Barton and Rachel Bilson as well. In this week's issue of People, they claim that GG's Leighton Meester and Lively are "curvy". If these girls are curvy, what does that say about everyone else above a size 2? To claim that the GG girls are putting forth a healthier body image than the girls on 90210 sounds downright insulting to a gender I'm not even a part of.
Everyone also seems to be forgetting the fact that Grimes has been on TV for awhile now, and yet nobody seems to have cared what her weight was while she was on Degrassi: The Next Generation. Maybe Canadians are too nice to openly criticize a girl's weight, but here's the kicker: She looks exactly the same now as she did while on Degrassi. While Degrassi has never reached the number of viewers that 90210 does, the fact of the matter is that her weight hasn't changed, so if you didn't complain about it back then, you shouldn't now. These girls on 90210 are having their first shot at stardom, and they're being cruelly investigated not because of anything relevant like their acting quality, but just because the tabloids need a new flock of weight scapegoats. Welcome to Hollywood, ladies.
One last thing; If everyone is going to take shots at the female leads for being uber-thin, when is it going to happen that they start criticizing how unrealistic their male counterparts are on these series? Last I checked, not every guy in high school has toned biceps and rippling abs. The only thing more unbelievable may have been Adam Brody playing the unattractive nerd on The OC. If there's pressure on girls to be skinny, there's just as much now on guys to look like gym slaves. Think I'm wrong? Tell it to the 15 year old who's doing 300 ab crunches a day so he can look like Chace Crawford. Continue reading "Absorb This: The 90210 Girls Are the New "Too Skinny" Scapegoats"
Read more!
Brad is part of a dying breed, known often as the "movie star". Aside from a few others (namely his domestic partner and Ocean's Eleven costars), a bona fide movie star is hard to come by these days. And it's an even rarer breed of star that you'll see throw their weight behind a controversial political issue. In this PR-censored era, long gone are the days when the likes of Jane Fonda, Martin Sheen, or Vanessa Redgrave weren't afraid to speak their feelings on certain political issues, let alone do so with their checkbooks.
Yet that's what Brad is doing, as yesterday he donated $100,000.00 to stop Proposition 8, the amendment to be voted on in California in November that would effectively ban gay marriage. Brad is the first major celebrity to make a significant donation to the cause of stopping the ban, the first of its kind that would effectively reverse the Supreme Court's ruling that has allowed gay marriages in California since June.
Both Brad and partner Angelina Jolie have stated in the past that they won't marry "until everyone else can", and this continued gesture of their support is significant in that it's rare for a major celebrity to throw their weight behind a controversial cause these days. So thanks to Brad Pitt, this is just another reason why you'll always be in the hearts (and sexual fantasies) of gays everywhere. And judging by the fact that funding to stop Proposition 8 is a full $5 million behind those who want to ban gay marriage, we need all the help we can get.
Read more!
As many of my friends can attest, I have been, for several years, a Britney Spears fan. Even in the days when I was "heterosexual", I was a devoted fan of her breathy, only semi-talented vocals. I even own all of her albums, which in this day and age, is actually saying something. I even stuck by Britney even during those tumultuous Kevin years, followed by last year's level of craziness only equalled by Michael Jackson. And yet now Britney seems to be back, after winning 3 Moonmen at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards this past Sunday. So why would I, someone whose Britney playlist on iTunes is only succeeded in number of songs by U2 and Madonna, be unwilling to be jumping on the bandwagon with Britney as she hits the comeback trail? Find out, after the jump!
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for comebacks. I was all for Mariah's big comeback a few years ago after her much-publicized bout with "exhaustion". Pink is also enjoying a wondrous resurgence right now with her single "So What", after her previous two albums faltered in sales. Heck, the world even decided to forgive U2 after Pop.
Yet the difference between these people and Britney Spears right now, is that they actually did something creatively to get back in the good graces with the public. Carey released arguably the greatest album of her career with The Emancipation of Mimi. U2 did the same with All That You Can't Leave Behind. Meanwhile, Pink has released her most commercially viable and catchy single in years, and looks to continue her string of critically-lauded albums. All in all, these three, along with various other artists, have had successful comeback stories, not because of hype, but because they created something that proved they were worthy of the public's attention once again.
So far, all that Britney has done is regain her sanity. Aside from that, Britney has done very little to get back in the good graces of the public aside from catching the Mariah Carey Express back from Crazyville, and giggling beside Russell Brand and an elephant in the MTV VMA commercials. All of this is fine and dandy, but it still doesn't equate to anything to compensate for the past few years of crazy we've had to absorb, let alone prove that Britney is even a shadow of the dominant force in music she once was.
This week's past VMA's didn't offer anything better either. While the show was completely tailored to showcase Britney's "comeback", it did very little to showcase any reason why we should be excited about it. In fact, her multiple victories, including for Video of the Year for "Piece of Me" (for which she seemed awfully nonchalant for someone who was "totally not expecting this"), only showcase how meaningless and superficial the Moonmen have become since the days when truly innovative videos, like REM's "Losing My Religion" would reap the awards. Surely "Piece of Me" wasn't the best video nominated, it won simply because Britney's appearance would gain the most hype.
The biggest backer of Britney's return, of course, has been MTV. The network seems to have confirmed with the VMA's that to them, she's this generation's Madonna, and they're going to have a long, collaborative relationship just like MTV and Madge have for over 25 years. The only difference is that Madonna earned that relationship by pushing creative boundaries and constantly challenging not only herself, but MTV as well. And while I'll probably be a big fan of whatever Britney comes out with next (scheduled for spring 2009 tentatively), until then, this guy will take the scenic route instead of jumping on the Britney bandwagon.
Read more!
This past weekend was one full of musical entertainment for myself, as I had the pleasure of going to two very different concerts. The first was the Journey, Heart, and Cheap Trick concert at the Molson Amphitheatre on Friday, Sept. 5th. Two days later, I got to head out to the British Invasion-themed Virgin Mobile Festival on Toronto island, where headliners included Oasis, Paul Weller, the Stereophonics, Moby, plus more (which is what Danko Jones referenced himself as being called on V-Fest's ads). So, after logging a solid 13 hours of live music absorption, I present to you the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of it all:
The Good: 1. Heart: Why oh why were the lovely Wilson sisters not the headliners of this 80's themed concert instead of Journey? Who knows, but after blazing through a set of greatest hits, Ann and Nancy proved two things: female rockers can still play guitar and wail out their hits just as good as any of their over-50 male counterparts, and that you definitely don't need to be a headliner to steal the show. The set highlights? The sisters pairing up to rip through a cover of "Battle of Evermore" and their hit "Crazy on You" during the encore.
2. Noel Gallagher of Oasis: For keeping his cool during a high stress situation (see Ugly), and after a brief hiatus, taking the stage once again to play the highlight of not only the Oasis set, but possibly the whole day, with an acoustic version of "Don't Look Back In Anger" that left the entire crowd in awe. The rapturous applause afterwards for Noel were certainly justified, not only for the incredible performance, but for doing so in such a relaxed manner in the face of a stressful predicament.
3. "Lazy Eye" by the Silversun Pickups: The entire Silversun Pickups set was pretty incredible, as the L.A. based group knows how to make zone-out guitar shredding tantalizingly hypnotic, and did so no better than on their popular single, which closed out their entertaining late-afternoon set.
4. Spiral Beach and Sons & Daughters: The two winners of the award for Bands We Discovered and Loved While at a Music Festival. Spiral Beach opened the main stage, while Scottish group Sons & Daughters headlined the alternative stage. Both were incredibly catchy and had great rapport with the crowd. In the case of Sons & Daughters, that rapport was so good that it reached us even from inside the buzz-happy depths of the beer garden.
5. Jason Tait of The Weakerthans: While the entire Weakerthans set was fantastic as usual, particular kudos go to sometime Broken Social Scene contributor Tait, whose talents on all things percussion raised the performance from live to lively.
For The Bad and The Ugly from the two concerts, take a look after the jump!
The Bad:
Paul Weller: One could blame this on my demographic being not exactly the one Weller goes after. Or you could blame it on me not knowing any of his songs previously. Yet I enjoy many acts much older than Weller, and not knowing any songs was the same case for Sons & Daughters, and they were wonderful. My issue lies with Weller's inability to get the crowd riled up. Heck, Weller failed to even keep the crowd interested, which was noticeable when they barely registered his exit. If Virgin was gonna go for an aging British rock star to add to the lineup, couldn't they at least have gotten Iggy Pop, like they did for the Baltimore V-fest?
2. Lineups: They're always a pain at concerts and music festivals. However, this weekend two were particularly brutal. The first being the sluggish traffic line we waited in for over an hour to get parking at the Amphitheatre, causing us to miss Cheap Trick entirely. Seriously, what's the point in holding a concert if you can't have adequate parking for it? The second was the lineup to get into the DJ tent to see Moby, the lineup for which was longer than the bathroom and beer garden lines combined. While this proves that the Mobster still has some popularity holding over from the late 90's, waiting that long to see only a DJ set bordered on ludicrous.
3. Journey: After witnessing this debacle, I may have to reverse my previous feelings in the Journey vs. Boston debate. While "Don't Stop Believing" was of course a highlight, the rest of the 80 minute set was mixed at best. While new lead singer Arnel Pineda certainly sounds like Steve Perry, he, along with the rest of the band, did very little to connect with the crowd. By the time they had walked off for the stage (and barely even greeting the crowd with any acknowledgment), it was as if the band had lost its favour with the crowd. Plus, out of their 30 year career, the band often focused on the new stuff. Who wants to hear the new stuff?
The Ugly:
1. The Moron Who Tried to Attack the Gallagher Brothers: So the Gallagher brothers of Oasis got into a fight at V-Fest. Oddly enough, this time it wasn't with each other. Whoever the turd was who decided to rush the stage and attack Noel Gallagher, it was obviously not the smartest move. The Gallagher brothers are notoriously prickly when things don't go their way, and many in the crowd (myself included) attributed the band cutting their set short (by almost 30 minutes) to the fact that someone had tried to physically assault them. With a set that focused primarily on new stuff and was surprisingly singles-lite, I'd like to thank Noel and Liam's would-be attacker for not letting me hear "Don't Go Away". Or "Do You Know What I Mean". Or "Champagne Supernova". And I'd like to thank them with a smack on the face.
2. Danko Jones: I've never been a huge Danko fan, and clearly Danko himself is having issues with people not being big fans. While it was humorous at first that Jones took a few jabs at his own band for not being the headliner, it turned awkward when Jones spent over five minutes urging the crowd to "pretend he's Oasis" and cheer louder for him. While it worked at first, the schtick went on too long, and it became pretty clear that Jones has personal issues with his waning popularity. Sorry Danko, but maybe you could take a lesson or two from Sisqo, and learn to accept your waning popularity graciously by appearing on Gone Country.
3. Liam Gallagher of Oasis: For throwing an obvious temper tantrum after the above-mentioned attack on brother Noel, and leaving the stage angrily throughout the rest of the set. Um, Liam, last we saw, the guy attacked your brother, not you. Chill dude, concert temper tantrums involving your brother are soooo 1997.
And now, for some clips from Oasis, including one showing the brief attack on Noel, check out below. Enjoy!
First, here's Noel getting attacked at 1:29
Which he then returned from and sang "Don't Look Back In Anger".
