Here’s Brad Pitt in a super short film featuring him dressed as Henry Spencer from David Lynch’s 1978 film, Eraserhead. To be honest, I’m not really sure what the point of this was. It must be weird being so famous that you can film yourself combing your hair in a different way and it gets covered by the New York Times.

[Apparently it was part of a whole series of contemporary actors "embodying" (dressing up as) cinematic villains from years past. Here's Baby Goose and George Clooney, for instance. They're... pretty boring, actually.]

Not to be outdone, here’s Harrison Ford in “Staplerhead.”:

Read the rest of this entry »

Haha, cool video, bro. 

I think the funniest part about this is that it came from the New York Times.

Oh sure, James Franco making out with himself is New York Times-worthy, but me getting to third base with myself gets me thrown off public access.  Hypocrites.

Well, now all the nonbelievers can finally add Disheveled Joaquin Phoenix to their list of imaginary holiday figures -Casey Affleck has officially revealed to the New York Times that his upcoming Joaquin Phoenix fecal party, I’m Still Here, is actually just a piece of performance art. Shocking, I know. And for all three of the people who just genuinely gasped, I’d like you to drink some of this Kool-Aid.

*hands over leather canteen*

In a series of e-mails that followed a Thursday interview with the paper, Affleck turned all bromo and couldn’t stop praising the star of his film:

“His performance is compelling, always watchable, manages to be repulsive and charming, believable in all emotions, completely committed, incredibly brave,” wrote Mr. Affleck. It must have been “tedious” for Mr. Phoenix, he said. “How difficult to resist the cheap joke, the wink, the nudge.” But, he added: “He has the tools for this. He has the goods in spades.”

“I hope Joaquin gets nominated for all kinds of awards,” wrote Mr. Affleck. “He deserves it.”

Yeah, whatever you say, Casey. He has goods in spades and three in the stink, we get it. When asked about the infamous David Letterman interview, Affleck was adamant that Dave wasn’t in on the gag, but the New York Times posted a link to an article from Nuvo.net where Late Night writer, Bill Scheft, claims Letterman was completely aware the whole time.

Read the rest of this entry »

The New York Times did an article on the Brüno movie over the weekend, focussing on the film’s overt political message. Surely it must have one.  Because comedy is propaganda, you see.

Gay groups are reacting with deeply mixed emotions, heightened by the recent triumphs (Iowa) and losses (California) in efforts to legalize gay marriage. Is the film then vulgar, inappropriate and harmful? Or bold, timely and necessary? All of the above?

Why is it any time someone uses the word ‘inappropriate’ I want to make a hole in their throat and poop in it?

Ultimately the tension surrounding “Brüno” boils down to the worry that certain viewers won’t understand that the joke is on them and will leave the multiplex with their homophobia validated [which I've heard you can redeem for free parking].
“Some people in our community may like this movie, but many are not going to be O.K. with it,” said Rashad Robinson, senior director of media programs for GLAAD. “Sacha Baron Cohen’s well-meaning attempt at satire is problematic in many places and outright offensive in others.”
“We strongly feel that Sacha Baron Cohen and Universal Pictures have a responsibility to remind the viewing public right there in the theater that this is intended to expose homophobia,” said Brad Luna, a spokesman for Human Rights Campaign.

We have a right to ensure stupid people aren’t laughing at jokes for the wrong reasons!  Don’t you see? The chicken only braved the dangers of the road because she was fleeing discrimination!

Holding the opposite view are people like Aaron Hicklin, the editor of Out magazine, who said he plans to put Mr. Baron Cohen on the August cover. “The movie does something hugely important, which is showing that people’s attitudes can turn on a dime when they realize you’re gay,” Mr. Hickland said. “The multiplex crowd wouldn’t normally sit down for a two-hour lecture on homophobia, but that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I’m excited about that.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday, a New York Times writer posted a thought-provoking blog about the search for a cure for autism, and the resistance amongst the autistic community, who don’t want to be cured.  Though I’d rather gargle pus than read the entire pretentious exercise, the highlight was surely when the writer used X-Men 3 as an analogy, and even quoted Brett Ratner.

A genetic difference is often adaptive and can be regarded as an advance in the evolutionary process; it is well-known that autism sometimes brings with it remarkable powers in the areas of music, art and mathematics. In the 2006 movie “X-Men: The Last Stand,” the augmented powers of those known as “mutants” are even more remarkable and include the ability to walk through walls, to move metal objects as large as California’s Golden Gate Bridge, to auto-generate fire [Pyro can only manipulate fire, he can’t generate it, stupid] or ice, to be in seven places at the same time, to read minds, to assume any identity, to kill with a touch, to fly like Icarus [perhaps not the best person to cite in a simile meant to illustrate the ability to fly…], to change the weather.

It might seem meretricious [Yes! Meretricious*! That’s exactly the word I was looking for! …] and insensitive to link a serious condition like autism with the heroes and anti-heroes of a comic book fantasy. But the link is encouraged by the film’s director, Brett Ratner, who said on About.com that the story “has strong racial, political and sexual aspects” and wonders, “What if … African-American[s] could take a pill [that would] ‘cure’ them of being black or if a gay could take something that would alter his sexuality?” That is, what if a condition scorned by the majority but prized by the minority that inhabits it could be eliminated by a simple injection? What would the minority do?

Gee, thanks for explaining Brett Ratner’s high-minded allegories to us simpletons, New York Times writer guy.  Autism awareness is of course just one of the many causes in which Brett Ratner is actively involved, including Fat Acceptance and the Society for the Recognition of the Exceptionally Mediocre.

*mer·e·tri·cious
–adjective

1.  alluring by a show of flashy or vulgar attractions; tawdry.

As in: My word, what a meretricious outfit your mother is wearing!  Thanks to her diaphanous bloomers, I can nearly see her baby cave.

[Thanks to the Brave Sir Rob for the tip]