As something of a tv junkie, I had to watch Canterbury's Tales Law. Julianna Margulies is the lead and much tougher and more complex than she was in E.R. days. I quite liked it, to my surprise. There were several sub-threads and a fair amount of barking people, but the overlying plot was somewhat interesting and I get the feeling it's a character-driving show where it doesn't much matter what happens, just that you get to see those people again. It's directed by Mike Figgis (Miss Julie, Leaving Las Vegas, The Browning Version, Liebestraum, . . .). Definitely worth some more watching.

Labels: celebrities, tv, writing

I have two questions about celebrities who take lots of drugs and drink lots of alcohol and are depressed.

The first is why does becoming fabulously wealthy and incredibly popular make someone depressed? I accept that it does, given the number of wealthy and famous people who have imploded, but I do not understand why. For Heath Ledger, being a red-carpet star apparently distressed him. Sure, it's foolish, but would he have been ostracized from all further film work if he didn't go? Anyway, according to what one reads, he had a fairly deliberate career plan and often turned down roles that were merely star vehicles, because he liked to get his teeth into more substantial character types of roles. But why wouldn't someone so intelligent and aware of himself not just stop doing films he found distasteful and do theater work or volunteer work or whatever made him feel okay about himself? Some actors do that and don't go all over nuts and suicidal. Why not him?? Does making a ton of money and being on the cover of "People" a bunch of times cause a lobotomy-like chemical change in brains and decision-making abilities? I mean, we all - and I mean all - make lousy decisions and do really stupid things lots and lots of times, so I'm not blaming young celebs for being human and fallible. Not even remotely. I just don't get it that it seems to be precisely the money and fame that irks them and causes them difficulties. Is it all just a matter of wanting the opposite of what you have? If you're rich and famous do you automatically want to be poor and anonymous? Or maybe it's just that a certain percentage of the population will be very unhappy and inevitably make bad choices - and celebrities are simply part of the population.

Anyway, my other question is why don't friends and families intervene if their rich and famous friends and/or offspring so obviously are freaking out? Name one ordinary citizen who could do even one iota of what Britney's done and still have access to their kids. One. You can't. Let me put it this way: if a good friend of mine was clearly depressed (not sad : depressed) and was shooting or smoking major drugs like heroin, not to mention paying less and less attention to his physical appearance and well-being (did you see recent pictures of Heath Ledger?), I'd be calling them every night and going to their house and calling their parents and maybe even dragging them to an emergency room. Wouldn't you?? I mean, with all the helpers and advisers and general factotums that these people employ, why didn't ANYone, not to mention family, think it made sense to refuse to leave him alone until he was helped?

Labels: celebrities, headlines, reflections

All types of religious zealotry and fervor scare the bejeezus out of me (mild pun intended). No matter which side of the political or religious spectrum. No matter who. At the moment, Mike Huckabee scares me a lot. I like his dimple, but cuteness does not a president make. And his "take back the nation for Christ" outreach is downright terrifying. Yes, I appreciate that he's not hiding his fervor or his beliefs under cloaks that might look more palatable to those of us who do not hold his beliefs. And I completely agree that economic and social difficulties abound (school shootings, violent kids, crazy prices, wild disparity between the "top" and "bottom") and need to be addressed and that something needs to be done. A calm, forceful, clear-seeing leader would be a superb place to start. But talking about sin is not in any way going to help. It will not unite, soothe or fix anything because it alarms and scares those of us who are not in lock-step with his convictions. I'm glad he has convictions, unlike the previous Arkansan president, but his convictions include bigotry and intolerance, which we need like holes in our heads. And let's face it - one of the fundamental tenets of our society is that there are many ways to get through life, far too many for anyone to take it upon him- or her-self to bandy around accusations of sinning. Religious freedom and freedom of expression are the bricks upon which our foundation sits. Kindness and tolerance must be there too, as must helping the weak, sick and angry among us. Whereas branding people as bad or sinful is absolutely not. And the very idea that he thinks he knows what is sinful and what is good is terrifying. (If there is even such a thing as sin, of course.) I can't even imagine what this country would be like if he were in 1600 Penn Ave. How can anyone think he would be a viable president of a country grounded on separating church and state in order to preserve personal and religious freedom and tolerance?

Not dissimilarly, Oprah's revival meetings for Obama scare me. She has fans who are as rabid in a religious sort of way, who follow her bidding or her suggestions as if they feel they "must" do what she says. Obama may be a wonderful guy and may be perfect for the presidency - or may not be - but I'm darn sure it makes me queasy if Oprah Winfrey is the person making that determination. The fact that she can bring out over thirty thousand people to a rally for him shows how huge are her power and influence. There's some good news in that, with Oprah's support, Obama could derail Billary, also that there's very little ideology in her message, nor in his, it seems. She may actually just want people to take the man seriously. That's fine, if so, but aroused gatherings of tens of thousands of people are dangerous and make me feel uneasy.

In the U.K., they call the lead-up to the election "the silly season." Indeed, it is ridiculous and outrageous and vitriolic and all kinds of things. It is also very important and serious. And not the least bit silly, unfortunately.

Labels: celebrities, politics

Some of the most enjoyable hours of my life have been spent watching reruns of old Dr. Kildare movies. These black and white films offer amusing stories brought to life by magnificent actors : Lionel Barrymore, Nell Craig, Red Skelton, Walter Kingsford, Lew Ayres and (drumroll, please) Larraine Day as Mary Lamont, Dr. Kildare's love interest and, eventually, wife. Sadly, Larraine Day has died, only a few months after her husband of 47 years (!) (she was also married to Leo Durocher of Brooklyn Dodgers fame, for 13 years). We are very lucky to have many movies of hers to watch whenever we can, all of which are delightful but none more so than the Dr. Kildares - of which there will be a marathon on TCM on November 28th (get out your Tivo's!) (most welome h/t Laura).

Labels: about me, celebrities, movies

No way. Grace Slick is 68 today. Surely not. She'll always be a rambunctious kid. Happy birthday, Gracie!!!!

Labels: anniversaries, celebrities

Monday it was announced that Camilla, newish wife of Prince Charles of England, would not be attending the 10th anniversary memorial service for Diana. First of all, let me say that my own reaction when I heard that was "duh, gee, no kidding." I mean, what would have possessed the woman even to consider attending? (Who can forget the "squiggey tapes" and "three people in this marriage" after all?) I guess she's even more clueless and vapid than one might have imagined.

On Monday, musing Laura wrote about this, too, and had a similar reaction. The comments to her post were quite funny, including one saying that the writer never "got" the ideology of Diana (as I never did, either, I have to admit) and one about what children of Camilla and Charles would have looked like (a bit unkind, but true). While un-gentility is afoot, let me add that I watched the interview with the princes a few weeks ago and was somewhat startled to conclude that neither of them seems to have a lot going on. They're both ruggedly handsome, it goes almost without saying, but neither seemed able to form sentences nor suggest they'd thought about anything very seriously. Perhaps being incredibly rich and royal isn't good for people.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, reflections

Last week, Michelle Obama said this:

One of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first. . . .

I have two things to say about this. One is to point out that one reason some of us respect and voted for GWB, as a matter of fact, is precisely his sharing of some (not all, at all) of our values. (I am not an intensely religious person, for example, but on the other hand I appreciate his commitment to and focus on his family and, perhaps even more important, his own counsel.) The other thing I want to say is that I keep thinking and believing that character matters, and I hope it does, but I'm not sure it really does.

Labels: celebrities

It had to happen eventually, I suppose, although I was beginning to wonder if she'd discovered an elixir akin to Dorian Gray's painting. Brooke Astor made it to 105 but died on Monday, alas. There are several interesting pieces in the NY Sun, if you want to catch up on your reading about her.

She was particularly quotable, saying things like "Money is like manure, it should be spread around" and "People expect to see Mrs. Astor, not some dowdy old lady. I don't intend to disappoint them" by way of explaining her always fashionable appearance. If you don't know about her, reading her life story is like reading the history of the last century. The events (the Titanic, among others, figured importantly in her life), the monumental technological and social changes, not to mention the changes in what's considered proper for a woman both in and outside the home. Fascinating, personal and personable, urbane, witty, sharp, fashionable, on and on. . . . And, like me (ahem) she wore big comfy shawls long before the current trend.

Incidentally, the photo here (from one of the NY Sun articles) is when she was 85. Yes, 85. What genes she must have had. (And what clothing designers!) She and Kitty Carlisle Hart used to dye each other's hair, as recently as the 1990's, and loved to talk about how much fun they had doing it. Can you imagine?!

Last year, William Buckley wrote an article, also in the Sun, about Mrs. Astor's philanthropy and the battle wrought by her son and grandson. (About which I'll write, no doubt several times, but after her funeral on Friday. It's intriguing and, let's face it juicy, but it seems ungracious to dwell on it until a few moments and sufficient pause to pay our respects have passed.) Buckley succinctly wrote that "[s]he sent money everywhere, not least to blighted parts of the city where John Astor amassed the fortune that five generations later she was spiritedly dissipating. But in 1983 she resolved to train her energies and focus her philanthropy on the world of books." Which is why so many owe her a debt of enormous gratitude and appreciation. People like her are rare, and they leave a large black empty hole when they are gone.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, history

Thanks to Laura for her tribute to screenwriter/director/producer Mel Shavelson who has just died at age 90. A detailed obituary is here on the USC site. He taught screenwriting at USC for decades, stopping only just last year. He married his second wife five years ago (at 85!) after his first wife of an amazing 63 years had died in 2000.

Among his many (35!) produced and filmed screenplay are Houseboat, Yours Mine & Ours, The 7 Little Foys, I'll See You in My Dreams and Five Little Pennies (one of my all-time favorites and it turns out he won the Writers' Guild award for the screenplay, how about that?!). He also created and wrote the pilot for Make Room for Daddy and the theme song for Gilligan's Island on tv.

He directed many stars, including (but not only) Lucille Ball, Yul Brynner, James Cagney, Vittorio De Sica, Angie Dickinson, Kirk Douglas, Robert Duvall, Henry Fonda, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Barbara Harris, Charlton Heston, Bob Hope, Danny Kaye, Jack Lemmon, Sophia Loren, Paul Newman, Lee Remick, Frank Sinatra, John Wayne, and Joanne Woodward. Quite a list.

He had many stories about the actors and films, and must have been an extraordinarily entertaining and good teacher. I'm looking forward to checking out his autobiography, How to Succeed in Hollywood Without Really Trying: P.S.—You Can’t!, which was published on his 90th birthday. I wish one didn't discover such interesting people only when they leave us, don't you?

Labels: celebrities, getting older, writing

Nope, not he of chanting fame, but she of highway beautification. Lady Bird Johnson has died at a fairly robust 94. The NYTimes printed a photo of her from the early 90's (ours, not hers) and she looked almost identical to herself forty years earlier. Maybe being around all those flowers and trees was good for her. (Note to self: check out flower extracts.) I am quite curious about what The Texas Scribbler implied in his post but anything else to the contrary notwithstanding, as we traverse our often stunningly beautiful country, we should gratefully remember her devotion to adorning the roadways with wildflowers and trees.

Labels: america, celebrities

Did anyone else notice that Paris Hilton looked relaxed and unphony when she walked out of jail last night? That may be the first genuine smile I've ever seen on her and she actually looked pretty.

I do have to say that I enjoyed one newsman's comments (Jonathan Hunt) in the wee hours (yes, I was awake and heard it my very own self):

This is a very different liberation of Paris than the one we all celebrated August 25, 1944. It may show how the culture has changed that we're now celebrating this liberation of a very different sort of Paris...

and his wry observations that Paris's mother left the windows open so the photographers could get unencumbered photos and that neither Paris nor her mother seemed to be wearing seatbelts but that it was unlikely the police would stop her because they wouldn't want to start this all over again.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, huh?

Barbara Walters turned down the post-jail Paris Hilton interview because it wasn't important enough - as opposed to the interview with the Menendez brothers?!?!?! Please somebody rescind Walters' press pass. Can you say disingenuous and b*&^%#t and oh for heaven's sake? I wonder what the real reason is.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, huh?

Two things I need explained, please: (1) what facts are so astronomically different than what we the public knows, that made a judge award custody (not shared custody, mind you, plain old everyday every day custody) of two children to David Hasselhoff, and (2) why it matters or we should care or anyone would be the least bit surprised that Elizabeth Hasselbeck doesn't think she and Rosie are friends.

Labels: celebrities, huh?, reflections

I'm getting mighty sick of the ranting and raving about how excessive the sentence is for PH. Of course 40 days in jail is excessive for a first DUI but that's not what the sentence was for. She was sentenced because of three subsequent blatant violations (not one, not two, but three): first she drove with a suspended license and claimed not to know she wasn't supposed to, second she did it a second time and claimed she didn't know (blah blah) and was given probation and told that she would receive a jail sentence if she violated it again. It's not complicated. So why do commentators just blow right over that?

And there's the medical records. The ones her lawyers failed to submit as part of their argument against jail time. The ones the sheriff was holding in his hands. The ones he claims were the basis for his letting her out. He never petitioned or even met with the judge about the medical issues to shorten or overturn her sentence. Instead, he violated the court order and took upon himself powers he simply doesn't have. And apparently this isn't even close to the first time he's done this.

So why does the sheriff get away with this? He didn't even bother to show up on court today (although then he might have been sent straight to jail himself!). He should be hauled into court and reprimanded for taking powers to himself that his office does not provide. Even more, he should be cited for contempt for violating a court order. We all knew so clearly he knew that the sentencing order stated clearly and explicitly that there should be no electronic monitoring, no change to house arrest, no work release or weekends off, no shortening of the (already halved) sentence. And yet Sheriff Baca made no petition to the court, simply went and altered the terms of the sentence himself. It's the equivalent of giving the judge and Lady Justice the finger and then claiming he's waving to someone.

By the way, PH is supposedly incredibly upset and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. But guess what she did last night? She had a welcome home party. Guess what she was doing thig morning? She was planning a party and getting her hair extensions refreshed. I'm not making this up. There are photos. Yes, it was party planning that she had to stop when the judge ordered her to the courthouse rather than participate via phone. That's when she started the crying and screaming about how unfair it all is. Can you say "farce" and "phony"??

Keep in mind that obeying the original 90 days' license suspension would have avoided all this. Nobody likes being in jail but if you don't do something that might result in jail, it won't happen.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, ridiculousness

I hate paying so much attention to this but the basic fairness of a society founded on law requires that everyone be expected to follow the same rules in the same way. Thus it's fascinating when someone decides to flaunt the law. And especially bizarre when one part of the law (the sheriff) is flaunting it. LAPD vs. the sheriff department vs. PH vs. the judge vs. the law.

And get this: make-up and hair people came to her house when the deputies did. And the police actually waited for her! What the heck is with that? Let's us try that and see how far we get.

I have many questions about all of this, but these are dominant: Isn't reckless driving a crime? Isn't driving with a suspended license a crime? Isn't violating the terms of your probation and/or sentence a crime? Why didn't PH just show up at court herself today? Why did she basically force the police to come to get her and drag her off to court? What insane games is PH playing? What Machiavellian games is the sheriff playing?

Keep in mind that this would never have happened and/or all have gone away in a millisecond if she'd obeyed the 90-day can't drive period and/or hired a chauffeur in the first place. Now she's violated the first restriction and two subsequent ones as well. Doesn't she have to be treated like a scofflaw? And if the sheriff wasn't trying to get extra funding and more space in a manipulative way, wouldn't he have enforced her sentence? Goofy and insane. They're all goofy and insane and they're taking California taxpayers along on their goofy and insane ride.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, ridiculousness

Great. Al Sharpton, of all people, has said it perfectly, including being generous (which I would not be in this case):

Though I have nothing but empathy for Ms. Hilton . . . , this early release gives all of the appearances of economic and racial favoritism. . . . There are any number of cases of people who handle being incarcerated badly and even have health conditions [but] are not released. . . . I even fasted which caused health concerns to prison authorities who paid for a doctor to come see me daily rather than release me. This act smacks of the double standards that many of us raise.

Amen.

Labels: celebrities, ridiculousness

Paris Hilton has been let out of jail, sent home with an ankle bracelet, due to "medical reasons." Unbelievable. I'm betting she cried her fake little eyelashes off, pouted, refused to eat, etc., etc. And an anorexic who won't eat might die, and the jail certainly didn't want that on their hands. What a totally willful, spoiled brat. (And/or if she really is such a delicate flower, then she's mentally unfit even to be on red carpets and such.) This wasn't about a DUI but flagrantly disobeying the requirement not to drive with a suspended license. And she signed not one, not two, but three statements that she was not supposed to drive, yet she continued to drive. She claims she didn't know what she signed. Come on. Is she illiterate? Don't tell me none of her guardians told her not to drive. No, I'm sure she stamped her expensively-shod feet and said she was immune from regular laws. As indeed it turns out she is, ridiculous though it seems. Why didn't she just hire a chauffeur? Oh, that's right, then she couldn't be seen through the looking glass known as her car's front window. Hey, wait, I know!! Let's everyone say we just can't take it and need to have ankle bracelets and house surveillance. Course, if any of us ordinary mortals try those antics, we'll be locked right up and for the full time, believe me. Why in heaven's name is she allowed to be so flagrantly haughty and get away with this??!

Labels: celebrities, headlines

Giving the rest of us a questionable name, some bloggers are famous as conspiracy dredger-uppers and fans. Sure enough, several insist that the Rosie and Elizabeth dust-up was deliberately set up to make Rosie look bad. They "prove" it by asserting that the split screen showing Rosie on one side (face all flushed, scrunched up and angry) and Elizabeth on the other (blond, cooler but really angry herself) required planning and thus we know the fight was intended to make Rosie look bad. Odd conclusion since ABC probably likes to make money. Furthermore, split screens are used a lot, even on live shows. All it takes is an alert director or producer actively watching things as they're happening.

The world sure is getting crazier all the time. And heaven help the vitriol level if Rosie decides to back one of the presidential candidates.

Labels: celebrities, headlines

Do you suppose Nicole Kidman really is making Keith Urban wear an ankle alcohol monitoring device? Strikes me as appalling and probably pointless unless it's a court-ordered alternative to jail or something. And granted that I don't know what it's like to have my life dictated by yearning for something that prohibits me from living the life I want to lead (which I hasten to add is not to say that I don't engage in anything unproductive nor that I always live as I want or should) so maybe I shouldn't be assessing this, but it sure reminds me of the old "don't think about a purple cow" thing, as a result of which admonition the only thing you do think of is a purple cow.

Labels: celebrities, headlines