<![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, new york magazine]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, new york magazine]]> http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/newyorkmagazine http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/newyorkmagazine <![CDATA[We Still Don't Know Whether Inglourious Basterds is Going to Suck or Not]]> We're Tarantino fans for sure, but a WWII movie about Nazi-killing Jews? We're a little skeptical, and the critics aren't helping our confusion.

The reviews are starting to come in and evidence is contradictory. On the positive side, Lisa Schwarzbaum from Entertainment Weekly gives it a B and says it's, "cinematically dazzling, to be sure, 
 enhanced by an meticulously chosen retro soundtrack." In New York David Edelstein gushes.

Even more than his other genre mash-ups, this is a switchback journey through Tarantino's twisted inner landscape, where cinema and history, misogyny and feminism, sadism and romanticism collide and split and re-bond in bizarre new hybrids. The movie is an ungainly pastiche, yet on some wacked-out Jungian level it's all of a piece.

Oh, but his fellow Gothamite David Denby couldn't disagree more, and rails against it.

Like all the director's work after Jackie Brown, the movie is pure sensation. It's disconnected from feeling, and an eerie blankness-it's too shallow to be called nihilism-undermines even the best scenes.

Even the trades are split. Variety comes out in favor:

By turns surprising, nutty, windy, audacious and a bit caught up in its own cleverness, the picture is a completely distinctive piece of American pop art with a strong Euro flavor that's new for the director.

And The Hollywood Reporter against:

Otherwise the film lacks not only tension but those juicy sequences where actors deliver lines loaded with subtext and characters drip menace with icy wit. Tarantino never finds a way to introduce his vivid sense of pulp fiction within the context of a war movie. He is not kidding B movies as he was with Grindhouse nor riffing on cinema as with Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bill films.

The only people who can come to a consensus are the British where both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph hated it.

Damn, now it looks like we're going to have to save Harvey Weinstein from bankruptcy and pay our $12.50 to try to figure out for ourselves whether or not it's good. God, critics are even worse than Nazis.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5339229&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Terrified Anne Hathaway Tackles Scary Shakespeare]]> The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Many Hollywood stars have come to New York thinking they could conquer the New York stage and many of them have failed miserably. Now here comes Anne Hathaway in her "first major theatrical production," playing Viola in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.

Hathaway, coming off a much-deserved Oscar nomination for her performance in Rachel Getting Married, is starring in the Shakespeare in the Park production of Twelfth Night opening this week at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park. As a result, Hathaway was featured in a piece in Sunday's New York Times and is subject of this week's New York magazine cover feature.

About her gender-bending role in the play, Hathaway sounded, well, terrified in the Times piece.

"I have a double learning curve, not only because it's my first time with Shakespeare but because this is my first major theatrical production," Ms. Hathaway said. "So just staving off a nervous breakdown has been the main thing for me."

"A lot of people in the cast come up to me at the end of the week and ask how I'm feeling, and I kind of vomit emotions, and they say, ‘Oh, good, that's exactly where you should be,' " she said. "And I remember the first time a bug flew into my face at rehearsal, I turned to Dan and asked, for my own edification, ‘If a bug flies into our face, are we allowed to react or just be stoic?' He just said, ‘Use your discretion.' "

Ms. Hathaway still seemed a bit surprised and thrilled to be in the cast.

"Yeah," Ms. Hathaway said, "I think I live in constant fear of being revealed to be a fraud because I'm with not only exquisite experience, but actors who have so much stage experience. And people who have experience in the park, which is a whole different kind of expertise."

"I had a very naïve, really arrogant adolescent idea that I could do Shakespeare because I did one monologue in an acting class when I was 18," she said. "One thing that dawned on me early in this process: We were sitting around and sharing our knowledge of Shakespeare and some trivia, and I just realized that the study of Shakespeare is cumulative, and I felt really lucky to be getting my first crack at it at such a young age."

In the New York piece, Hathaway noted how she's long yearned to spread her dramatic wings by tackling stage roles and secretly harbors a desire to become a full-blown stage diva.

She likes the long rehearsals, she likes slipping off to the uptown Shake Shack with cast and crew. It's a bit of being the actress she imagined she'd be when, as a child in New Jersey, she decided to take after her mother, who acts in regional theater and has done so forever. "I hounded [Public Theater director] Oskar Eustis for years," she says. After Rachel, "I think it became more of a priority for him to get me onstage." Hathaway stirs her coffee. "I do hope that doesn't sound obnoxious."

Talk of other projects swirls around her, but she's coy about it. "I don't mean to be, but sometimes things don't work out in the end, and then people think it's because you hate someone, and I don't hate anyone!"

It has, however, been confirmed that she'll be playing Judy Garland on Broadway, and that seems about right.

"This is so embarrassing, but one of the waitresses just walked by with a glass of white wine and I almost reached out and grabbed it. It would be lovely to have a bit of release, but no. I have to go to rehearsal. I don't want to be the girl who shows up tipsy. But wouldn't it be fun? Wouldn't it be fun someday to be a grande dame who can get away with anything?"

We think she'll do just fine and we look forward to seeing her perform in the play. Now, who wants $50 to go out and wait in line for a ticket for us, because we don't have time for that crap.

The Three Sisters of Twelfth Night [New York Times]
Her Enchanted Evenings [New York]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5299349&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Letterman vs. Conan: Who Ya Got?]]> The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Tonight Conan O'Brien takes over the reins of the Tonight Show and he'll probably score huge ratings because it's his first show and everyone will be curious to see what the new show looks like. But who are you going to watch at 11:35 after all the hoopla dies down?

That's a question we've been asking ourselves a lot over the last few days. We love Letterman. We also love Conan. We've never really been forced to confront this sort of dilemma previously. In the past the question of who to watch at 11:35 was a no-brainer—-Johnny Carson was the only show in town during his era, and Letterman was always matched up against Leno, his comedic antithesis in just about every way, so usually we watched Letterman on CBS at 11:35 and then switched over NBC to catch Conan at 12:37. It was all so fantastically fine.

But now there's this new thing and we don't know quite what to do. This is like that time Hulk Hogan squared off against Andre The Giant for the WWF title when we were kids—-We didn't know who the hell to pull for!

We can, however, take solace in knowing that we aren't the only ones confused by all this. New York has a feature in their new issue by Sam Anderson addressing the same subject.

Now we have to adjust to a new binary: Letterman versus Conan. (Leno will take his show to prime time, where he enters into a new binary with a bunch of sausage-grinder franchises like Law & Order and CSI.) On the surface, Letterman-Conan is infinitely less dramatic than Letterman-Leno; the intensities have all dropped out of the equation. They are not peers-when Letterman started his first late-night show, O'Brien was at Harvard studying Faulkner and writing Lettermanesque humor for the Lampoon. There's no obvious bad blood-Letterman was an early Conan supporter, and, just as Letterman once paid tribute to the retiring Carson ("Thanks for my career"), Conan spent much of his recent Late Night farewell speech gushing over Dave ("David Letterman invented this Late Night show … He set the bar absurdly high for everybody in my generation who does this"). Their stylistic differences will create very few rifts between friends and neighbors. Conan speaks fluently in the late-night language Letterman invented: cerebral non sequiturs; field trips in search of real-world absurdities; forays through the bowels of the studio to interrupt other shows. Both hosts morph into clingy nerds when faced with beautiful actresses. (Conan once screamed like a linebacker and threw his chair after Rebecca Romijn kissed him.) Conan is in many ways a mini-Letterman: tall, lanky, red-haired, stunty, smart. If Letterman-Leno felt like a decades-long slow-motion death match, Letterman-Conan threatens to be its opposite: sweet, cute, possibly even boring.

The most tantalizing possible outcome of the Letterman-Conan binary is that it will force Letterman, at this late stage in the game, to get better. To stand out against the background of Jay, Dave just had to be Dave. To compete with a younger, hungrier version of himself, he might have to do more than that, for the first time in years. The similarities might turn out to be a blessing: Their stunts will cross-pollinate, their jokes will play against each other. To differentiate themselves, they may even have to launch an arms race of total absurdity.

We'd like to just state here and now that we have no issue whatsoever in "an arms race of total absurdity." In fact, we encourage it. Please fellas, indulge us. And as for who to watch, we suppose that we can just DVR one or both shows and watch one at 11:35 and the other at 12:37, because we usually have to be kinda stoned to get into Craig Ferguson and Jimmy Fallon's show just, you know, fucking sucks.

Letterman vs. Mini-Letterman [New York]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5273701&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Media Bitchery: The Definitive Bibliography]]>

Think of how easy it might have been to understand Arianna Huffington's bloggy animus toward Tim Russert if there were a book out chronicling all the sordid details of their decade-and-a-half-long secret feud. (There is.) Every gossip-mongering gadabout should know the full backstory on every spat, falling out, and long-running mutual antagonism in media. Below are the volumes no shelf should be without.

1. The Operator: David Geffen Builds, Buys, and Sells the New Hollywood, by Tom King

The Gist: A gay Polish-Ukrainian Jew from Borough Park moves to Hollywood and enters the mail room at the William Morris Agency. After forging a letter suggesting he had a college degree when in fact he did not, Geffen rises through the ranks to become an agent, then leaves WMA and founds Asylum Records and produces albums by Jackson Browne, Joni Mitchell and Bob Dylan. Asylum is sold to Warner Communications, and Geffen becomes Vice Chairman of Warner film studios. He then retires and un-retires after a minor but erroneous health scare, founds Geffen Records, courts John Lennon and Yoko Ono (see below), produces Cats, Risky Business (see below), co-founds Dreamworks SKG, produces Saving Private Ryan, backs Bill Clinton, gives lots of money to AIDS research, falls out with Bill Clinton over one of the sleazeballs he didn't pardon, and now backs Barack Obama. Along the way Geffen throws many temper tantrums and raises his voice to the point where even Steven Spielberg asks him politely to lower it. He also shows a remarkable ability for betraying the confidences of good friends and business associates in order to charm potential clients he’s just met. The night Lennon was shot, Geffen was in bed with a male prostitute and loves to boast about it.

The Pull-Quote: “’What about my music?’ [Yoko Ono] asked. ‘Well, I’ve never heard any of your records.’ ‘Really,’ Ono said. ‘That doesn’t sound like a very good reason for me to make a deal with you.’ ‘I’m a big fan of John’s, and I have a great deal of respect for the two of you, and we do a very good job. We’re a good record company.’ ‘What do you mean you’re a good record company?’ Ono fired back. ‘You haven’t put out a record yet!’”

The Takeaway: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Be enlightened and progressive on your own time, but cunning and ruthless on corporate time. Respect for others’ privacy won't make you rich and powerful. Endear yourself to those you want to impress by gossiping about people you know behind their backs. It'll smack of such poor judgment that would-be clients will assume you're either crazy or brilliant, and guess what? You are.

2. Tina and Harry Come to America: Tina Brown, Harry Evans, and the Uses of Power, by Judy Bachrach

The Gist: Gifted writer Tina Brown makes her fellow students feel small at Oxford, dates a host of famous men (including Auberon Waugh, who washes frantically after sex, Martin Amis, whom she adores, and Dudley Moore, whom she does not), deflects charges of arrivisme, and becomes editor of UK tabloid Tatler at age 25. She meets Harold Evans, then married and famously editing the The Times of London and The Sunday Times, which names her Most Promising Female Journalist. Brown and Evans marry in 1981, then move to New York three years later, whereupon Brown revives the moribund Vanity Fair by turning it into the must-read glossy on celebrity doings and the leisure class. She hires true crime reporter Dominick Dunne, photographer Helmut Newton and inaugurates a new wave of magazine journalism, operating under the assumption that "intellectuals should be read and not seen." Meanwhile, Tina and Harry are now East Coast socialites whose fiercely guarded life together aspires to shape headlines, not become them. (Their best friend is British libel law.) Brown takes over The New Yorker in 1992 and remakes that antiquated smart sheet, too, acquiring Malcolm Gladwell, Anthony Lane and David Remnick, who later replaces her as editor-in-chief. On a manuscript submitted by Yiddish Nobel laureate, Brown writes, "Beef it up, Singer," which more or less encapsulates her style of feared-but-respected-or-hated tenure. She founds Talk magazine in 1999, which folds after just two years, an over-sensationalized failure from which this unauthorized biography derives all of its rise-and-fall schadenfraude. (Bachrach is a contributing editor at the new VF, edited by Brown’s archnemesis Graydon Carter.)

The Pull-Quote: "We live in a time when infamy sells.... There is no honor, no reticence, no loyalty." Spoken by Maureen Dowd on Brown's New Yorker reign, and quoted by author to make a clichéd point.

The Takeaway: Develop a nose for future A-listers. Sleep with as many as you can all the while adopting an “amused” air about them. Overpaying the talent means you can bully them into submission, so don't be cowed by easily tossed around phrases like "national institution" or "greatest living writer." Fuck 'em if they can't take a kill-fee. Oh, and marry old men.

3. How To Lose Friends and Alienate People, by Toby Young

The Gist: Son of highbrow sociologist Michael Young, who coined the term "meritocracy," Toby Young devotes his life to testing how much strain that already weakened concept can take. He writes for the British Times, gets fired from the British Times. He founds celebrated Modern Review, which traffics in "low culture for highbrows," then shuts it down, much to the dismay of everyone else involved. Young moves to New York in the early 90's, gets hired by Graydon Carter as a contributing editor (read: sinecurist) at Vanity Fair, then proceeds overlong tenure as a piece of gum stuck to the bottom of Graydon Carter’s shoe (this is G.C.’s description of him, not ours). Young cracks dud jokes to celebrities, refers to doormen who won't let him into parties he'd end up hating anyway as "clipboard Nazis," does blow while on assignment, asks Nathan Lane if he's gay, gets fired from Vanity Fair. Now back in London (this isn't in the book), Young edits The Spectator, a conservative weekly, and boasts of his "negative charisma," probably as a way to boost paperback sales. HTLFAAP, much like Young himself, has been up and down the wicket of sadomasochistic success. A film adaptation is said to be in post-production, starring Simon Pegg and Kirsten Dunst.

The Pull-Quote: “Cool Britannia was a cry of independence, a howl of protest against the all-enveloping cultural hegemony of the United States, yet, paradoxically, it didn’t really mean anything—it hadn’t really happened—until it was noticed by the American media. That explained the schizophrenic attitude of people like Damien Hirst, Keith Allen and Alex James: they wanted to assert their indifference to the attentions of glossy, New York magazines, and yet they wanted to be photographed striking this insouciant pose in Vanity Fair. Like rebellious schoolchildren, their protest wouldn’t have counted unless it was registered by the authorities. Unfortunately, in this scenario I was cast as the toothless substitute teacher.”

The Takeaway: The memoir is a good object lesson in what not to do if you want to hang onto a job or a masthead listing, or cast the impression that deep down you really had high expectations for the world of glamour-besotted New York media. Also, it pays to be obnoxious in a way that only you find ironic.

4. Spy: The Funny Years, by Kurt Andersen, Graydon Carter, George Kalogerakis

The Gist: In 1986, Graydon Carter and Kurt Andersen found the future of piss-taking journalism in the form of Spy magazine. Épater le bourgeoisie never had it so good, or so the editors – now all dressed up and fixtures of the very culture they once lampooned – are the first ones to remind you. Spy pioneers satire as a clever agglomeration of facts, and specializes in the infographic, the listicle (just like this one!) and the blurb cloud. It attempts to decipher just who, exactly, is on the New Yorker’s indecipherable masthead. It follows Anthony Haden-Guest into the dank reaches of his own nightlife. It refines hatred of Donald Trump into an art form. Features include the Liz Smith Tote Board, Separated at Birth, and Logrolling in Our Time, without which everything from The Onion to Conan O’Brien’s pre-interview fooling would be unimaginable. The self-conscious prose style is a cocktail of H.L. Mencken, A.J. Liebling and Wolcott Gibbs, and its been swigged by every glossy editor in search of a readership ever since. Once G.C. leaves, it all goes to shit. Like Studio 54, the new owners can’t make it work, ergo the justified hubris of the book’s title.

The Pull-Quote: “How easy is it to steal the sour cream?” – in a chart surveying the various Manhattan cafeteria chains.

The Gist: You need only ask yourself if you read Radar to determine whether there’s any pedagogic value to be mined from Spy.

5. Bright Lights, Big City, by Jay McInerney

The Gist: Nameless 24 year-old fact-checker for elite New York glossy (a thinly veiled New Yorker) moonlights as an aspiring novelist, or wants us to believe he moonlights as that while he’s busy Hoovering coke by the suitcaseful and partying through the vertiginous 80’s club scene with a yuppie twat called Tad Allagash. Tad calls the narrator, who writes annoyingly in the second person, “Coach.” His mother has recently passed away, so we’re shin-kicked into wondering if a life of artifice and glitz is simply an emollient for real pain. Behind the hatred there lies a plundering desire for love. Or something.

The Pull-Quote: “Just now you want to stay at the surface of things, and Tad is a figure skater who never considers the sharks under the ice. You have friends who actually care about you and speak the language of the inner self. You have avoided them of late. Your soul is as disheveled as your apartment, and until you clean up a little you don't want to invite anyone inside.”

The Takeaway: Once Tina Brown takes over Coach’s magazine, he’s fired. Sort your soul out before you move to the metropolis of infinite distractions, otherwise you, too, will wind up a shiftless anonymity with withdrawal symptoms. (Your apartment can still be a mess, however.)

6. The Devil Wears Prada, by Lauren Weisberger

The Gist: Recent Brown graduate Andrea Sacks wants to write for the New Yorker (sigh) and blankets the media world with her resume hoping to get a dues-paying job somewhere that will eventually allow her to become Larissa MacFarquhar. Whoops. She gets hired by fashion bible Runway’s bitch supreme Miranda Priestly (Anna Wintour, not even thinly veiled) as her junior personal assistant. Next thing Andrea knows, she’s chasing down lattes at Starbucks and sirloins at Smith and Wollensky instead of learning about ledes and nut grafs. Not what she had in mind but she loves the clothes and even develops a knack for being a second-string slave to a subhuman narcissist. Unlike in the film, Andrea doesn’t quit – she gets fired for saying “Fuck you, Miranda. Fuck you.” Ballsy, sure, but she does get to keep some of the Dolce and even snags an interview for a real writing position at another magazine in the same building. (N.B. Author Weisberger was Wintour’s personal assistant, so this novel is a bildungsroman, which is a word Andrea learned at Brown but seldom got to use after graduation.)

The Pull-Quote: “Fuck you, Miranda. Fuck you.”

The Takeaway: How many bright young girls have come to New York hoping to fill these Cinderella slippers, only to discover that not only is Wintour not hiring, but she’s honed her filter for confessional opportunists more interested in publishing advances than making sure her Apple Fritter is extra flaky. If you want to be a bona fide reporter, save yourself the aggro and dashed hopes and apply for an internship at the New York Sun your junior year. Also, while it’s true that some ball-breaking editors respond well to self-assertiveness, telling your boss “Fuck you” isn’t the wisest career decision.

7. Monster: Living Off the Big Screen, by John Gregory Dunne

The Gist: The story of Dunne and wife Joan Didion's attempt to transform the life of anchorwoman Jessica Savitch, who died in a car wreck after more or less proving on air in 1983, during a broadcast of NBC News Digest, that she was a drug addict. Instead of a sadder version of Network, the screenplay transforms into the Disneyfied Up Close and Personal, which makes absolutely no mention of Savitch and which even Robert Redford doesn't remember filming.

The Pull-Quote: “The purpose of such a meet-and-greet is to allow the executive to size up the supplicant. [Disney studio chairman Jeffrey] Katzenberg had not read Golden Girl, but he was aware of the less savory details of Jessica Savitch’s life. He liked the ugly-duckling idea; it was the kind of narrative he wanted, and he was also responsive to the television background against which it would be played. He did have reservations, and here I quote Joan’s notes of that first meeting: ‘Wants to know what is going to happen in this picture that will make the audience walk out feeling uplifted, good about something and good about themselves.’”

The Takeaway: Dunne is witty and disarming, especially when he quotes Jack Warner's definition of screenwriters: "schmucks with Underwoods." Interestingly, the "monster" in question is not the industry or any particular studio executive, but rather the money that governs all, including Dunne.

8. You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again, by Julia Phillips

The Gist: Scandal-sponge Jewish producer reveals the vast corruption, drugs and sexual indiscretions that motor the movie industry. Phillips gets fired by Steven Spielberg on the set of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, accuses Goldie Hawn of body odor, and, on the night she becomes the first woman to win a "Best Picture" Oscar for The Sting, downs three valiums, one upper, one and a half drinks, two joints and a dash of cocaine. The book is a sprayfire indictment of practically everyone Phillips ever met in Hollywood, and it got her banned from Morton's.

The Pull-Quote: "They were really a rogues' gallery of nerds. Marty [Scorsese] was tiny and asthmatic, Steven [Spielberg] had the soft, flabby look of a typical Twinkies kid, and Brian [De Palma] never took his safari jacket off."

The Takeaway: Sour grapes ferment the best, although it's not as if anyone still believes in some West Coast Arcadia where dazzling moving pictures are made. Still, you'll hardly do better for the brutally honest story of a show biz prodigy that had to burn everything before she flamed out.

9. Autumn of the Moguls: My Misadventures With the Titans, Poseurs, and Money Guys Who Mastered and Messed Up Big Media, by Michael Wolff

The Gist: Following up on Burn-Rate (1998), which was about Wolff’s bust foray into the world of online startups, this is the nasty-minded sequel by the former New York media writer who wants badly to be the next Murdoch but can’t and decides to just insult everybody he ever envied instead—especially Fox News President Roger Ailes. Most of the stuff in here consists of Wolff's recycled columns, but it's all in one place and no true mogul ever wasted his time searching through web archives. Harvey Weinstein is obese and grotesque. The media business is "collapsing” like communism. Some of Wolff's axioms should be true even if they aren’t: “The larger and higher-profile the company, the bigger the nutcase who runs it.”

The Pull-Quote: “This was the meta thing. Meta gave both irony and gravitas to what we did. The delicious incongruity between our superficiality and our importance. The joie de vivre of self-referentialism. The stupendous, intoxicating power of being able to create the world we lived in."

Bonus Pull-Quote: “So, as I arrived for my speech, I was thinking of my relationship to the absent but always present [Fox News head Roger] Ailes. He was the greatest, but the Antichrist too.”

The Takeaway: Still fun. Like Young’s book, AOTM is a serviceable monument to failure dressed up as critical thinking. Though most of the wisdom you could just as easily cull by lunching at Michael's. Wolff went on to try and match-make the sale of his old haunt New York (he's now at Vanity Fair) to Mort Zuckerman, who in the event lost out to hedge fund wizard Bruce Wasserstein. That means more meanness is forthcoming in what promises to be the Dance to the Music of Time of inferiority complexes.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5017315&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ In a fairly unprecedented move for a film...]]> In a fairly unprecedented move for a film critic at a major publication, New York Magazine's David Edelstein issued an apology for his eulogy last week attributing late filmmaker Anthony Minghella's artistic slump to the meddling of his studio backer (and good friend) Harvey Weinstein. "I had decided to eat shit even before Harvey called," Edelstein wrote today. Wait — Harvey actually called? "Yes, he called — did you think he wouldn't?" Edelstein continued. "He was the soul of politeness, believe it or not. He said he cried for hours when he got the news. He said Minghella came to him with most of the projects. He said despite his 'Harvey Scissorhands' reputation, Minghella was not a man whose work you recut." Edelstein (who also noted Defamer's reaction at the time) later reaffirmed his right to give Harvey shit at a later time, to which we hear Weinstein recommended the Oct. 31 release date of Kevin Smith's latest, Zack and Miri Make a Porno. [NYM]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=374686&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA['NY Mag' Critic Manages Impossible Task of Compelling Sympathy For Harvey Weinstein]]> Harvey Weinstein's tough week didn't get any easier today, with his Marley family squabbles and Star Wars-geek travails cycling back around this morning to the Anthony Minghella tragedy that started it all. Except that film critic David Edelstein had more than what you might call a moment of clarity in his New York Magazine blog entry slamming Harvey for the filmmaker's artistic demise:

Now that the shock of Anthony Minghella's sudden death has dissipated slightly, I think it's less unseemly to say that this brilliant and soulful filmmaker died unfulfilled. ... And I can't help thinking that what happened has something to do with someone whose name rhymes with Shmarvey Shmeinstein. ...
Why did he complete only six films (counting one in the can) in the eighteen years between Truly, Madly, Deeply and his death? Where were the gutsy little modestly budgeted movies — good or bad or uneven — that could have kept him rooted? ... It's not that he was forced to make crap. It's not that his movies were entirely mangled by big hairy paws. It's that an artist who could have set an example for gutsy personal filmmaking surrendered his autonomy — as so many others have done — in the name of someone (or shmomeone) else's ego.

Look, it's a dense essay that deserves a complete read-through. Nevertheless, the downplaying of Minghella's accountability for his own work — including five collaborations with Miramax and The Weinstein Company — is one of several glaring vacuums into which a relapsing Harvey is no doubt exhaling full packs' worth of cigarette smoke and blinking pure Diet Coke tears this afternoon. And while we don't necessarily believe that Harvey is capable of this kind of lethal sociopathy with his filmmakers, we'd strongly encourage Edelstein to listen closely to any unmarked parcels for a few seconds before opening them.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=372626&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Lindsay Lohan No Longer Content Just Showing Us Her Nipples]]> Lindsay Lohan has never been one to shy away from press, no matter how bad or embarrassing it may be. And following right on the heels of her controversial nip-baring photo shoot for New York Magazine, Lindsay's apparently become so fond of showing off her T&A that she's decided to arrange various photo shoots displaying each of her five tattoos. And though the tats' placement aren't, as far as we know, placed in the vicinity of body parts the revealing Marilyn Monroe-inspired shoot didn't dare show, we wouldn't be surprised if a nouveau tat representing some lame Chinese saying for sobriety appeared in the exhibit, premiering this Thursday in New York. Images of LiLo's known tattoos after the jump; it's up to you to figure out how highbrow artists are going to manage to turn the oh-so-original stars and John Lennon lyrics into masterpieces:

Lindsay's first tat was simple enough: a black star on her forearm right when she was entering the Hollywood teen scene:
lindsays-star-tattoo%20lindsaylohanwatch.jpg

Then came the inevitable tramp stamp, with a quasi-saving grace meaning behind it, supposedly dedicated to her dead Italian grandfather (but also a hit song on one of her records!):
labellavitatatbig%20everytattoo.jpg

And following her "asthma attack" on New Year's Eve in 2005, Lindz decided to commemorate the experience by etching "Breathe" into her wrist:
breathetat%20lohangroupie.jpg

Next in July of 2006, at the height of all those cocaine addiction rumors, Lindsay took a late-night trip with then-beau Harry Morton to get a heart inscribed on a commonly used area of the hand used for sniffing nose candy:
hearttat%20imnotobsessed.jpg

Finally, in May of 2007, Lindz decided to get her lucky number 7 inked on the back of her neck...
7tat%20tattoos.ushabty.jpg

...which turned out to be quite the unlucky move, considering she received her very first DUI two months later!
lindz707mugshot.jpg

We can't wait to crash this "exhibit" and discover how each of these masterpieces will be turned into epic photographs. Stay tuned.

[Photo Credits: everytattoo.com, lindsaylohanwatch.com, lohangroupie.com, imnotobsessed.com]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=362991&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Cover Homage To Marilyn Monroe; Lindsay Lohan's Done It Before]]> An inspired move by New York to play on Lindsay Lohan's obsession with Marilyn Monroe. Adam Moss' magazine scored one of the big web hits of the week, by persuading the Hollywood actress to strip for the same photographer who took the last, erotic photographs of Monroe before she committed suicide. Like I said, inspired. But not very original, it turns out. If Lindsay Lohan was paying homage to the mid-century bombshell, New York should have explained that it was itself paying homage to rival Vanity Fair. In 2006, Lohan channeled her alter ego in a spread for Graydon Carter's magazine. The styling? Borrowed from the first pictures of a 19-year-old Marilyn Monroe, at the beach in a white bathing suit. To think that, only two years ago, Lohan could play the ingenue without ridicule; now she's more credible as a washed-up actress on suicide watch. (Clockwise from top left: the early Marilyn, by photographer Andre De Dienes; Vanity Fair's February 2006 cover; this week's New York; and, the inspiration, the mid-century actress' "last sitting" with Bert Stein. Below: larger photos.)

Marilyn-Monroe-Oversized-Postcard—-1

Lindsay+Lohan+-+Vanity+Fair+-+Feb+2006+-+Cover-1-1

Picture 107-1

Picture 109

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5003223&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Lindsay Lohan Celebrates Sobriety By Dropping Trou For 'NY Mag']]> Ah, President's Day. We cannot think of a greater way to celebrate the memory of Millard Fillmore and James Garfield than to spend the next ten or fifteen minutes (hours?) rifling through New York's nude photoshoot with Lindsay Lohan. Just last week, we were celebrating Lindsay's new Sober Face, but even we must admit that it pales in comparison to her new Sober Nipples. Which, we might add, are on full display (!) in two of the spread's ten slides. As far as career rejuvenation stunts are concerned, we are predicting that this tastefully titillating homage to Marilyn Monroe's "Last Sitting" is poised to sit alongside Drew Barrymore's role in Poison Ivy in the pantheon of greatest breast-baring comebacks of all-time. A few of the tamer (but still NSFW!) selections follow after the jump; the rest can be found in this week's edition of New York. You have been warned.

Here goes...

lohan5.jpg

lohan4.jpg

lohan9.jpg

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=357586&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA['NYMag' Profile of Director Liman Leaves Out One Thing: Doug Is A Douche]]> Dougliman Sunday's New York piece on Bourne director Doug Liman was basically your typical boilerplate profile of the weird genius. Annoying-but-brilliant, healthily despised, and—for the purposes of this here piece—highly redeemable. That is, if you don't count the debasing way the director, son of a hero of civic litigation, treats his assistant. Less relevant to his character, but still a major put-off, we hear Liman doesn't brush his teeth!Author Steve Fishman recounts in detail Liman's destructive tendencies on set, quotes friends who once hated him (some sound like they still do) and dishes on the director's Daddy issues. But, this being a Hollywood magazine profile, in the end Fishman ties it up in a neat package: Liman may be a fuck-up, but he's a rebel fuck-up with a vision. A source who's worked with the director (and came away displeased, admittedly) tells us the profile misses in a big way. "Instead of the truth (he is a shitty Director) they cast him as a creative david fighting the Goliath that is the studios." A few insider details New York left out? Liman's not big on cleanliness (dandruff and deodorant mishaps), makes his assistant pick up the dog poo while he walks his pooch, and likes to brag about starting a new fraternity at alma mater Brown—the others just weren't cool enough for him. As for his power at the box office, his four major films (one of which he sort of swiped) reportedly cost a combined $238.7 million, with domestic revenues of $329.1 million. For a director who's spent over a decade in the business, "he has literally dozens of failures," says our insider.]]> http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5002275&view=rss&microfeed=true <![CDATA[Liveblogging 'New York Mag' Liveblogging the Oscar Announcements]]> Every year, New York Magazine film critic David Edelstein and producer Lynda Obst correspond via email on the day the Oscar nominations are announced, and their ramblings are posted on the mag's website (this year, they're hosted by the Daily Intel). Yes, you heard right: email. We hear David had been really edging towards IM this year, but there was a last-minute glitch involving animated emoticons. Anyway, in the spirit of immediacy, we thought we'd liveblog our thoughts as we read David and Lynda's e-pistles.

  • Paragraph one: David gleefully shits all over snubbedDreamgirls, shitting especially hard on the song "We Are Family." He's already won us over; the best thing we can say about that song is that at least it's not catchy. Seriously, how much would it suck to have "like a giant tree, branching towards the skyyyy . . ." stuck in your head. But we digress. And so does David: he's on to predicting an Oscar win for Little Miss Sunshine.
  • How excited are you that Leonardo DiCaprio got nominated for something other than The Departed? Well, David's really excited. Blah blah Scorcese, pause for lamedropping ("I was getting drunk at the bar next to Paul Schrader and babbling that it would be so horrible if the director of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull got an Oscar for The Departed, a piece of campy hackwork to which I was far too kind in New York's pages.") Campy hackwork, eh David? Is that what you meant by "the movie works smashingly?" Well, we'll let it slide, especially because you copped to it. Next!
  • Jennifer Hudson has been walking around "like a deer in headlights." Re: Dames Helen and Judy, "what can you say besides 'wa-hoo!'" What indeed.
  • "What breakfasts there will be in Park City this morning!" Sometimes, we wish we were some Hollywood retard. At least we would get to eat breakfast.

    We'll bring you more breaking liveblogging news just as soon as Lynda responds to David's email!

    Oscar Snubs Dreamgirls, Astonishing Edelstein [NYMag]


]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=230741&view=rss&microfeed=true