Tag Archive for Celebrity

An essay on celebrity hunting (or why I didn’t stalk George Clooney at TIFF)

September 15, 2011 Entertainment No comments

Ever since I was 13 years old, I’ve been in love with George Clooney.

He does have that smoulderingly handsome thing down, doesn't he?

I’m not kidding. In my Grade 8 yearbook, most of my friends left comments wishing me well on meeting Clooney marrying Clooney and living happily ever after in Hollywood. During my Grade 8 trip to Ottawa, I spent all my souvenir money on an ER T-shirt and candy.

I taped every TV appearance George made. For years. It was labelled my George Clooney tape. Along with the the Leno, Rosie O’Donnell and Letterman appearances, I also had key ER episodes recorded on there. I think I even managed a rare Roseanne episode featuring Clooney.

You don’t even want to know about my magazine clippings. Or how at 17, I convinced my mother to buy me an issue of Playboy because an interview with George was in it that month. (She did, cracking jokes how I was just buying it for the articles, wink wink.)

And I had a plan. Once I turned 18, I was hitting the road, going to L.A. and finding him. Did I truly believe something would come of it? Likely.

I was more than a little obsessed in case you can’t tell.

Soon, I moved past George. I never went down to L.A. I sod my clippings book and the George Clooney tape on eBay or 50 bucks. Just because a movie came out with him in it didn’t mean I had to rush out and see it.

I still had my moments though. Four years ago, George came to the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). A friend told me where the after party for his movie, Michael Clayton, was being held. I spent two hours waiting outside the location on Bay Street. Finally at 1a.m., I went home without an autograph or even a George sighting.

I just saw George Clooney on Yonge street #TIFF #Toronto on Twitpic

Like really, would one crappy picture be worth hours of waiting?

Flash forward to this year. It’s TIFF time again don’t know you know, and who was expected to attend? Mr. Clooney. Again, a friend in the industry passed on when and where his press conferences were being held, and I managed to find out where he was staying via Twitter, but watching the news the first night of TIFF made me realize something.

The report was from the red carpet of Brad Pitt’s new flick, Moneyball. A woman in her 40s, maybe even 50s, was waiting to see Pitt with her daughter and her husband, who she had instructed was to say he was her brother if Brad asked. His job was to take to the photos. And he did. The woman was ecstatic after Brad rushed by her and “knew she was alive.” They had waited hours to grab a glimpse of Brad Pitt.

It was about then I realized that even if George Clooney was in town, I had better things to do with my time than wait around at the Ritz to see if I could grab a peak or try and sneak my way into a press conference I didnt belong (not to mention what getting caught doing the latter would likely do to my career).

It was odd to think about because I am exactly the type of person you would think would be in to all this celebrity hunting stuff. I read all the magazines, pour over all the gossip online, but when it comes down to it, I’ve got better things to do than “run” into George Clooney after camping out somewhere for 12 hours waiting for him to show up.

And really, if he ever met me I’d just be a crazy-assed fan anyway. I’d much rather be me all of the time and read about him, and all the other celebrities in my magazines.

Should we really be mocking Charlie Sheen?

February 27, 2011 Entertainment 4 comments

ABC announced late Saturday night it has snagged a one-on-one interview with embattled actor Charlie Sheen.

The interview was held after CBS announced it was halting production on his sitcom Two and a Half Men for the season because of  his off-screen behaviour.

This isn’t the first time the star has “spoken out” (if you want to call it that), since he started making headlines for partying too hard, drinking too much and behaving badly.

Last week, in a radio interview with syndicated radio host Alex Jones, Sheen spoke out. (The interview was apparently the reason production was halted on his sitcom).

Some of what Sheen said included:

Well yeah but I’m tired of being told “well you can’t talk about that and you can’t talk about that” BULL S-H-I-T. Let me just say this, there’s nothing. I just think it’s deplorable that a certain Heim Levine, that’s Chuck’s real name by the way, mistook this rock star for his own selfish exit strategy bro.

Well, you’ve been warned dude. Bring it.

It’s yeah, it’s an understatement, you know it’s, I’m sorry man I got magic and I got poetry at my fingertips most of the time and this includes naps. I’m an F-18 and I will destroy you in the air and I will deploy my ordnance to the ground.

I was shackled and oppressed by the cult of AA for 22 years… Newsflash, I’m special. The only thing I’m addicted to right now is winning.

Debate me on AA right now. I have a disease? Bullshit. I cured it right now with my mind.

So it begs the question, just what crazy things will Charlie Sheen say Tuesday night?

Perhaps the question we should be asking is: Is it really fair to mock Charlie Sheen? If he is having a problem with alcohol or drugs right now, is it right that we laugh at what comes out of his mouth?

I say no.

However, some of my Twitter followers disagreed with me when I posed the question to them Sunday afternoon.

“It is fair. Nobody held a gun to his head. He wanted the show to get cancelled and found a way,” Noah Love commented.

And he wasn’t alone: “All public figures are fair to make fun of. (Unless something really bad as happened to them like they get shot.)” Sam Obermeyer said.

JGoldborough agreed: “Absolutely fair to make fun of him. Public figure. And he has made lots of $ playing himself in 2 and a Half Men.”

Is Charlie a public figure? Sure. Does that mean that he shouldn’t be made fun of? No. But alcoholism and drug addiction is a serious problem that shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Is anyone doing Charlie Sheen any favours by not offering the man some help?

Shutting down his sitcom for the rest of the year only puts hundreds of people out of work who have nothing to do with what Sheen does in his personal life. It will not teach Sheen a lesson, nor should it be expected to.

Sure, I don’t know what’s really going on with Charlie Sheen, and I don’t pretend to. But there comes a point when the jokes aren’t funny anymore, and I think we’ve crossed that line.

Perhaps instead of making fun of Charlie Sheen, or just simply putting him out of work (when he’s already made millions of dollars this year), somebody should step in and try and get him some help.

Otherwise, Charlie Sheen might lose more than just his career.

No women nominated for best director Oscar — so what?

January 25, 2011 Entertainment 3 comments

In 2010, Best Director won by a woman for the first time; this year the category is all male again.

That was on CP24′s crawl all morning after the Oscar nominations had been announced at 8:30 a.m. I had to do a double take the first time I saw it come around.

“So?” I asked myself.

Yes, last year’s win by Kathryn Bigelow was a big deal. She beat the Titanic himself James Cameron (not only was he the favourite to win; he’s also Bigelow’s ex-husband).

However, just because a woman finally won the best director Oscar, doesn’t mean that women are going to win every year. Nor does it mean women should be nominated every year.

Did anyone think that perhaps there wasn’t a woman-directed feature that deserved a best director Oscar nomination this year?

CP24 also pointed out that there are no African-American nominees in the main acting categories this year. Given Halle Berry’s performance in Frankie and Alice, that to me seems more of an oversight than the lack of female directors nominated.

Let’s take a look at the women-directed features from 2010 and see if any of them deserved a nomination over those who were nominated (or those who were snubbed):

  • The Extra Man (Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini)
  • Going the Distance (Nanette Burstein)
  • The Greatest (Shana Feste)
  • It’s Kind of a Funny Story (Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden)
  • Just Wright (Sanaa Hamri)
  • The Kids Are All Right (Lisa Cholodenko)
  • The Last Song (Julie Anne Robinson)
  • Nanny McPhee Returns (Susanna White)
  • Night Catches Us (Tanya Hamilton)
  • Paper Man (Kieran and Michelle Mulroney)
  • Please Give (Nicole Holofcener)
  • Ramona and Beezus (Elizabeth Allen)
  • The Romantics (Galt Niederhoffer)
  • The Runaways (Floria Sigismondi)
  • Somewhere (Sofia Coppola)
  • The Tempest (Julie Taymor)
  • Winter’s Bone (Debra Granik)

From this list, less than five could be considered Oscar contenders: Winter’s Bone, The Runaways, Somewhere and The Kids Are Alright.

Winter’s Bone has received four Oscar nominations — including best picture and best actress. It’s also won awards from film festivals across the globe, including Sundance. Granik walked away with four best director awards — from the Detroit Film Society Awards, the Independent Spirit Awards, the Seattle International Film Festival and the Satellite Awards.

The Runaways premiered at last year’s Sundance festival, to much buzz — though it’s hard to tell if that’s because of the film itself or the cast. It won no awards at Sundance and opened in theatres in March — it grossed just $3.5 million in its two-month release.

Sophia Coppola’s latest, Somewhere, was plagued with controversy after its debut at the Venice Film Festival in September. The film took home the Golden Lion award for best picture — something many thought was due to the fact that Coppola’s ex-boyfriend Quentin Tarantino was president of the festival’s jury. She also took home a special achievement award for directing, writing and producing from the National Film Board (USA).

Finally, we have The Kids Are All Right, directed by Cholodenko. The Kids Are All Right received critical acclaim and has four Oscar nominations — including best actress, best picture and best screenplay. Cholodenko was nominated for two best director awards — at the Independent Spirit Awards and at the Satellite Awards. She lost both to Granik.

Should these four ladies have been nominated? Perhaps Granik should have been (I didn’t think the directing in The Kids Are All Right was all that groundbreaking or award-worthy), but I can’t see eliminating any of the current nominees. Nor can I see any of these women any more deserving of a nomination for best director than Christopher Nolan who would be my pick to replace one of those nominated gents.

Here’s what it boils down to: Affirmative action does not, and should not, exist at Hollywood award show. Go take a look at the list of films released in 2010 and you’ll see that the vast majority of film directors last year were men. Thus, it makes sense that more men are nominated than women.

Yes, the Oscars are about quality not quantity, but the fact is more men are making movies in Hollywood right now. Therefore more men are being nominated for best directing Oscars than women right now. Period.

Should a woman have been nominated for best director? Who else was snubbed by the Oscars this year? (Cough, Ryan Gosling, cough.) Leave a comment and let me know!

Executive producer of Lost emails me!

August 19, 2010 Personal No comments

A few things you should know about me to understand why I think this is cool:

  • I like Lost (OK, I really like Lost)
  • I was so much of a Lost geek, I listened to the podcast with executive producers Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof (I submitted questions all the freaking time to it, in the hopes they would one day read mine. They never did).
  • I paid movie theatre prices to watch the two of them have a discussion with The New York Times days before the finale.
  • I refer to the two of them as Darlton and, in conversation, will mention something one of them has said as if I knew them personally (e.g.: “Well Damon disputed that!”) and follow them both on Twitter (I actually saw Inception as fast as I did because Lindelof kept tweeting spoilers and I had to stop following him and didn’t want to forget to start following him again).

So the week started like any other. Knowing that the copy of Entertainment Weekly that came in the mail last week featured an interview with the two of them (as well as loads of information on the contents of the Season 6 and Complete Series DVD sets), I saved it until Friday night and enjoyed it slowly. Taking my time to read and devour every word know this will likely be the last time I read anything from the two of these guys on Lost. Ever.

Flash forward (get it?) to Monday night, there I am at work, my Twitter stream popping up in the background, when I saw this series of tweets from Cuse asking for followers of his to submit questions to television writers for an Emmy panel he’s moderating in a few weeks.

I looked at the list of writers and was torn. I liked Glee, but is there anything I could ask Ryan Murphy that hasn’t already been asked? I needed something original, but something that meant something. I tried to draw on my film theory education as I looked once again at the list of writers Cuse would be talking to. There had to be something there that would tip me off …

And then it came to me. I directed my question to the writers of The Good Wife (a great show and the breakout drama from last fall):

Too many times it’s said that women don’t watch serial TV shows or go to movies that feature strong female characters in the lead role. The Good Wife, obviously, has proved that statement wrong (yet again). Since the show also appeals to men, how do you balance the amount of women’s melodrama you put into it, from what would attract a male viewer (e.g. the court cases). Were you ever worried that telling a story about a woman like Alicia Florrick would not take off because of that old adage about women and strong female characters? Could anyone but Julianna Margulies played that role? Do you think Margulies makes the difference?

I hit send and thought nothing of it.

Flash forward to Tuesday night at work. I happened to glance at my Gmail and saw two unread messages. I clicked over to the tab. And there it was. The Email:

Only eight words, but the sender says Carlton Cuse. Definitely the best email I’ve ever gotten.

Can’t wait to see if my question gets asked and answered in a couple of weeks!

Hey Bill, we’ve had this fight before

August 13, 2010 Entertainment, Media One comment

Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly attacked comments made by Jennifer Aniston earlier this week, calling women who have babies without men “destructive to our society.”

Aniston, currently doing the talk show circuit for her forthcoming movie The Switch about a woman who has a baby on her own, had originally said that women are no longer waiting for a man to have a child:

Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child.”

After O’Reilly’s attack, she fought back, saying:

Of course, the ideal scenario for parenting is obviously two parents of a mature age. Parenting is one of the hardest jobs on earth. And, of course, many women dream of finding Prince Charming (with fatherly instincts), but for those who’ve not yet found their Bill O’Reilly, I’m just glad science has provided a few other options.”

Here’s the thing, Bill: We’ve already had this fight about single women having babies being detrimental to our society. It happened 17 years ago to a man by the name of Dan Quayle when he attacked Murphy Brown for choosing to keep her baby and raise it on her own.

Now, I’ll give O’Reilly this; at least Jennifer Aniston is in fact a real person (unlike Murphy Brown, who was a television character), but that’s it. The argument was flawed when Quayle made it in 1992, but it’s even more flawed today.

Let’s go back. According to a Time magazine article, Quayle, who was the American vice-president at the time, made the following remarks:

“It doesn’t help matters,” Quayle complained, when Brown, “a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman” is portrayed as “mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another ‘life-style choice.’ “

Hmm. What did O’Reilly say again?

Right. Perhaps O’Reilly was busy back in 1992 when the whole Dan Quayle-Murphy Brown thing happened (maybe he was busy at Inside Edition), or maybe society went back in time to a time when it was a problem for women to decide to have kids on their own. I don’t know.

Here’s the thing. Conservatives say they’re pro-life, yet when it comes to a woman deciding that she’s ready to have a kid and decides she wants to do it now, on her own, this is a problem.

Who’s business is it if a single woman decides to have a baby on her own? No one’s. It’s not mine, it’s not the general population, and it’s definitely not Bill O’Reilly’s. Would being a single mom be hard? Undoubtedly so. But women have been doing it for years (think of all the women who are abandoned by the men who get them pregnant while they are pregnant — is it not better to be a single mother by choice rather than someone else forcing it on you?).

What if a man wanted to have a child on his own? Would that be a problem as well to O’Reilly? I’d wager not.

It’s well past the time that American conservatives get out of women’s reproductive health. Roe v. Wade should be left alone. Women who choose to be single mothers should be left alone. We are all people capable of making our own decisions in our own lives.

But really, someone get O’Reilly a copy of Murphy Brown. I’d love to see her give the same speech to him she gave about Quayle (and someone should also remind him that Quayle lost re-election that year — not that his comments about Murphy Brown had anything to do with it, I’m sure):

(I deleted the embedded video because it was automatically started whenever the page was opened, so click on the link for some retro Entertainment Tonight).
« Older Entries