A Dancing With The Stars Memo

If I were the memo-writing type, and if anyone (who hadn’t actually given birth to me) really listened to what I said (not altogether true: sometimes my siblings hear me out at Christmas  – but rarely for long) I would send the following email to the producers of Dancing With The Stars:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Congratulations. While I realize it’s tough to keep a big TV show going season after hit season, and even though there are those who think it unwise to utilize “stars” who became so seemingly overnight, please know that thus far your efforts have not been in vain. In fact, judging from some of the early press– particularly given the fact that your season does not commence for another seventeen days – you have already something quite special on your hands. In fact, if your goal was to generate curiosity within the press, and to create a situation where a great many viewers will most assuredly tune in on September 20th – if only out of a morbid fascination with your bizarre casting selections – I say, keep up the good work. Mission accomplished.”

That’s what I would say. Because to every person I know who says: “That show’s ridiculous. And admittedly, it was cool for a nanosecond with some of the early contestants. But this – this collection of has-beens, talent-free talent,  and crazed attention freaks is too much. I refuse to watch”, I respond:  Okay. Perhaps you’re right. And perhaps everyone will ignore DWTS  because of this season’s  casting choices. Only, I really don’t think this will happen at all. As in, have you seen the recent headlines from very reputable media outlets? They are as follows:

1) Situation: I’m the DWTS Underdog

2) Did Dancing With the Stars Cast Too Many Reality Types?

3) Bristol Palin: ‘DWTS’ will show my work ethic

Every single one of those headlines came across my news feed today, and they each hail from ultra-legit news outlets who certainly had plenty of other topics upon which to devote ink – if they thought they had a dud on their hands — but for some reason they didn’t. And why is this? Because the DWTS people took a risk and ran with it. They looked at the gaping maw that is Season Eleven and realized but quick that despite a few good  — and maybe even distance-going  –  hoofers, they had a vaguely troubling situation on their hands (and they hadn’t even hired him). Ask any newspaper person around (they’re easy to spot right now because a great many of them are currently unemployed) about the fastest way to get attention and they’ll tell you the famous old adage that “if it bleeds it reads.” Now that axiom was originally in reference to bad news, but in today’s world it’s also come to mean outlandish things to do with celebrity. And what bleeds most? People who prompt shoe-throwing at a TV screen.The dumber/louder/ruder/ raunchier/eyecatching-er the better. Which of course is what we have in spades with reality shows – because with them we are now officially citizens of the Lowest Common Denomi-Nation. Plus, check the headlines above– see any buzzwords  that generally appeal to most of us/ spark our curiosity? Like “underdog” and “work ethic”? Who doesn’t want to follow that?  With those terms they’ve managed to tap into our core – everyone loves an underdog, and  if you have a good work ethic you’re bound to triumph in the end, right? It’s kind of genius what they’ve done, because we have here a collection of some of the oddest (for lack of a better term) “attractions” on TV today – only now we’re being asked to view them within the context of the American Dream  – and suddenly we’re fascinated by whether or not one of them’s an underdog or if  the other one’s got any sort of work ethic. Frankly, I never cared for this show but the more attention I pay to it, the more I think that they’ve tapped into our consciousness in a really smart way. So let’s sit tight, because I predict major viewership of this show. Don’t believe that we’re all part of the Lowest Common Denomi-Nation? Think the show will be a dud right outta the gate? Let’s see what happens. Give it a few weeks. By the second week of October, if there are no viewers then, feel free to write me a memo.

Today’s poll:

Here are the four DWTS castmembers we haven’t asked you to vote on yet. Voice your choice in today’s featured poll and let us know which of these recently announced stars is your favorite:

1) Margaret Cho

2) Rick Fox

3) Jennifer Grey

4) Kyle Massey

Post a Comment (0) 8:25 am on September 2, 2010

Do You Know Any Real Housewives?

Today let’s talk about reality shows and why it’s a really good thing I’m not a talent scout. Because I spend an awful lot of time wondering where on earth they find some of these people. They’re right under our noses, we’re told. But I never believed it. A few years ago I was at the Sundance Film Festival, covering movies and interviewing the people who make them. When you see photos, it always looks incredible with the mountains behind the streets of a cozy town that comes to life for a few days every winter – like some kind of Brigadoon. And what everyone (myself included) loves are the candid shots of stars strolling the snowy streets. What’s not to love? Adorable actresses entirely subsumed by massive (faux) fur-trimmed parkas smiling, their cheeks flushed pink with the cold, their intensive Hollywood skin regimens waging mini-dermal revolutions against the wind chill. Then there are the affably handsome actors wandering with them; and rather than the parkas, with these guys it’s all about layering. And it all has meaning – you can usually spot the tee shirt underneath which frequently has a slogan representing a bar or a sports team or  — better yet –  a sports team from that young man’s home town. Then atop that there’s usually some kind of overshirt /hoodie which was kindly provided by one of the many wilderness outfitters who are tickled pink that he’s wearing their garb in the first place. Then outside of this, even though he’s been offered any number of wool overcoats and ski-wear, he’s far more comfortable in the tattered leather jacket that he wore in the movie he just made, and he’s kept it as a beloved token. He too has pink cheeks that are completely aglow with a) youth b) the career prospects that will undoubtedly materialize on account of his latest film and c) the mind-shattering hangover that he got while celebrating  ‘b’. The interviews are usually less-than-exciting for the simple reason that talent is being corralled like ponies by publicists; they rarely have anything groundbreaking to say because it’s cold and because the whole thing is a blur for them. (I think that’s why). One evening however, I had an unusual experience with someone who could not have been more poised. We’d gone to cover a special Chef’s Night event, which is basically a fabulous free meal where several celebrity chefs pitch in, and the next thing you know you’re in a wonderful lodge sampling all these astonishing wares. Nor do you have the faintest idea how you wound up there, but you don’t ask. On this particular evening I found myself seated with the cast of a hit indie film, a well-known English rock band, and a few other journalists (each just as bewildered as I by our good fortune). The English rockers were charming and jovial, the indie movie cast fascinating and beyond cool, and the whole thing was spectacular. There were maybe 100 guests — and everyone was welcoming and encouraged mingling. Which is very odd because in a place like that usually everyone is way too cool for school. Not here. The whole environment was created to foster warmth & inclusiveness  – although we really weren’t sure who was welcoming us. Finally, over dessert, a publicist came and asked if I’d like to interview the person behind it all — and of course I did. She strolled over to me and she was quite pretty and – despite the noise and merriment all around us — she was measured and extremely well-spoken. Every time I put the microphone in front of her she said something intelligent and upbeat, but not in a fake or mindlessly cheery way. She explained that she was a chef who’d decided to promote other chefs and so she created  these events in cities all over the country where ordinary people can sample this fabulousness. I’m pretty sure there was a charity angle  too. The point is I’d never heard of – or been to – an evening as beautifully run, that was in no way off-putting. I was genuinely puzzled by now and asked why she wasn’t a household name, and I even said something colossally stupid like “You are so perfect for TV –  you’re so talented and you speak in actual sound bites. What a natural you are!” And she smiled graciously and I remember asking the publicist how someone like that could be so comfortable with all this media and calm and competent at the same time. She then gave me her business card and thanked me for coming.  I put the card away without looking at it and a few months later noticed it and wondered if anything would ever come of that Bethenny Frankel, the gal who was so gracious and competent. And now she’s left  The Real Housewives of New York. Are you bummed? Voice your choice in today’s featured poll and tell us which of these Real Housewives is your favorite:

1)    Kelly Killoren Bensimon

2)    Jill Zarin

3)    Bethenny Frankel

4)    Alex McCord

Post a Comment (0) 8:28 am on September 1, 2010

Best-Dressed Emmy Ladies (part 2)

Hasselhoff. Brandy. Palin. Warner. Cho. Bolton. Grey. Fox. Sorrentino. Henderson. Patridge. Massey. They range in age from 19 to 76, some sing, some act, two are genuine athletes, a few of them are likely to take over were Kate Gosselin left off. They are of course the new cast of Dancing With The Stars which begins its 11th season on September the 20th.  Are they stars? You tell us. Would you pay cash money to see them dance?  I predict this will be 50% celebrity ballroom dancing competition, 50% watching & waiting to see if those not traditionally regarded as “stars” can rise to the occasion with grace, moxie and/ or athletic skill. By the same token, the picks this year seem so very outlandish that we may see the reverse effect – i.e., those participants who are actually regarded as stars  (in someone’s universe anyway) may begin to behave uncharacteristically – even poorly. Oh wait, then they’re just stars again. Never mind. Anyway, it would appear from this list that they are definitely using a template that’s worked in the past – only they seem to be running out of middle-of-the-road-talent. One of the casting directors was quoted as saying that she didn’t want viewers to have to Google any of this year’s contestants. Well, with the exception of a Super Bowl victory, you probably don’t have to check any recent awards databases either. Casting DWTS must be like preparing a very, very tricky meal. Because you know it has to be memorable, but it also has to be memorable for good and bad reasons. First you need to balance the level of has-been with just the right level of about-to-be, then you need to pepper it with a jerk or two who can be counted on to mouth off or be a poor sport. You need something spicy to give it zest (and/or humor: in this case Cho – last time it was Niecy) until you get tired of that zest (and you will, after a few weeks) which is when you turn to the good-looking and nicely-assembled garnishes on the side who haven’t been getting tons of attention but who, you know, will be sort of soothing with their talent (these are the jocks). Then you have the young delicacies  (Brandy, Patridge, Massey) so that when the meal isn’t tasting stupendous, you can still feast your eyes on something tantalizing at another part of the table (plus, these girls may actually be able to dance – and well –  as Nicole Scherzinger demonstrated so ably last year). They’ve actually done a pretty good job with the curiosity factor this year, because for everyone who’s never seen Jersey Shore (and this includes me) it’s is an opportunity to see just what verbal or abdominal  havoc  The Situation will wreak. Similarly, Bristol Palin may not be a star but her mother certainly is. Because whether you like Sarah Palin or not, remember that a) millions of people do b) millions of people don’t, and c) millions of people just plain don’t like how her kid was treated by that idiot boyfriend, so those three facts alone will guarantee another zillion viewers. You know what? When I began to write this blog I thought it was not a very interesting crop of talent. Looking now at this gang I actually think this will be a hilarious – and really fun season. Maybe they’ll all earn their stars, after all.

Today’s poll:

Voice your choice in today’s featured poll and tell us which of these Emmy red carpet looks was your favorite:

1)    Anna Paquin

2)   Gugu Mbatha-Raw

3)    Heidi Klum

4)    Mariska Hargitay

Post a Comment (1) 8:35 am on August 31, 2010

2010 Emmys: Best Dressed (part 1)

You know, awards shows get kind of a raw deal. Because tons of people don’t watch them, lots of folks won’t watch them, and those that do more often than not complain about them (myself included). What I really wonder about are those odd killjoys who insist on asking why we have awards shows in the first place? It seems to me they exist because we have – as a people and a species, the need to single out the good stuff. And performers, who are driven by many complicated impulses not the least of which is ego – need literally to get noticed in order to survive. It’s a pat on the back for what we do best coupled with pretty dresses, staggering jewelry, and as many activities for Betty White as we can find. It’s also kind of a uniquely American phenomenon (you rarely hear about the Swedes or the Chileans or the Estonians and all their over-the-top celebrations, do you?) At the end of the day, America pretty much invented the spotlight. And every once in a while, when we turn it upon ourselves and remember to keep things moving and hire intelligent writers, it all comes together. So to all the people who think awards shows are self–congratulatory fluff fests with little or no relevance/merit, I say, you missed a great Emmy Broadcast last night. It was smart, it was at times supremely funny, it was touching without being gaggably so, and even though I thought it could easily have been two-and-a-half hours instead of three, it was a very good night of TV. Jimmy Fallon was just right because he’s not well-known enough yet to have a larger than life ego/personality thing underscoring everything he does, and thus we liked watching him zip around goofily. Jim Parsons finally got what he deserved, Mad Men continues to shine with its third Best Drama Emmy (although creator Matthew Weiner – an enormous talent to be sure – might want to read that part in the Winner’s Manual, which he’s now had for years, where they tell you about how the more you win, the more humbled/stunned/gracious you should act). The opening number was sharp and quick, they kept gags to a minimum, and I doubt we’ll hear too much more about Lost. Bryan Cranston continues to be about the most likeable winning actor around, Jane Lynch is probably having as good a year as anyone on earth ever has, and I still have yet to meet one single person who’s watched an entire episode of The Closer. So was Emmy congratulating its own? Of course. But here’s the what: part of what makes the People’s Choice Awards fun to watch is that we know the winners got there because regular folks of the you and me variety enjoyed watching them act, sing, dance or whatever. The victory is correlated with the desire to reward someone who actually improves our leisure time.  There’s no Hollywood power play or behind-the-scenes agenda at work.  And this year, it seemed like Emmy took a page out of the PCA rule book.  Genuine crowd-pleasers were celebrated. (They also, with a very funny Ricky Gervais moment, literally took a page out of PCA’s book because waiters appeared and handed out beers  – much like our own pizza moment from last year. And you know what they say about the whole imitation/flattery thing). Bottom line, the Emmys were excellent and they kept to the point – which is to give golden treats to the people who made us laugh /listen/focus/and/or cry the most this year. It was mission accomplished. And so what if Lauren Graham and January Jones might have rethought their clothing/brought a comb? It was still fun. And who cares if the magnificent Betty White’s ubiquity is at risk of approximating Clara Peller ubiquity? There was also great running commentary (from the Mac ads guy) about each of the winners as they approached the podium, diminished only by the fact that the audio wasn’t great  (I’m sure they’ll fix that next year). Nor was it too much of any good thing – we got to see people singing and dancing who didn’t win, and vice versa. All in all, a really good evening. But rather than dwell on things like acting, directing, performance, and show quality, let’s get to the genuinely important stuff: the clothes. Voice your choice in today’s featured poll and tell us which of these ladies was best-dressed:

1)    Claire Danes

2)    Eva Longoria Parker

3)    Lea Michele

4)     Sofia Vergara

Post a Comment (1) 8:28 am on August 30, 2010

Weekend Diversions

Another Movie Day – with three brand new films at your disposal, although given the level of gore, C4, and horror connected with each of them, you might want to dispose of moviegoing  altogether and get to work printing those at-home Emmy ballots. Just FYI, the flicks are are 1) Takers (about a bank heist, and explosions, starring Hayden Christensen, and explosions, and Matt Dillon, and explosions, and that’s all I got from the trailer. It also stars Chris Brown who’s pretty absent from most of the trailer, which may or may not be curious, given his billing. Then we have 2) The Last Exorcism, which is getting lots of buzz because it’s a doc-style shaky-cam look at a preacher who agrees to try and remove the devil from a seriously terrifying-looking girl.  I predict major Paranormal Activity/Blair Witch style word-of-mouth here, although if it were up to me, The Last Exorcism would be the Last Exorcism Movie anybody made for a really, really long time. The other movie is 3) Centurion which is set in Roman Britain in 117 AD. Does that tell us enough?  This movie also happens to have an extremely attractive cast, but they’re all so covered in mud and blood and 117 A.D. misty smoke that you wouldn’t know it. So that’s what’s out there. By the way, saw a great movie this week: Nanny McPhee Returns. It stars of course Emma Thompson and she appears right when everything seems most hopeless for a family– she’s pretty much the Michael Clayton of nannies – and it’s funny and smart and great for kids and the adults who bring them and I would recommend it plenty. But none of those films will blow everyone away at the box office. Particularly since The Expendables will continue to make money hand over fist whether anyone you know sees it or not. And I’m betting someone you know has, because there are an awful lot of people who just cannot resist a little Sly. And Dolph. And Jet. And Jason, And Steve. And Eric. And Charisma. Among many others. Sheesh – maybe all they needed was to get everyone in the cast to bring a few family members to see it, and  pow!  –  it was an instant box-office smash based on numbers alone. Now I have to wonder about this Charisma Carpenter. Allegedly named for a perfume, she was a San Diego Chargers cheerleader before Aaron Spelling found her and then all the Buffy & Angel stuff happened. But let’s take a step back. What I want to know is, with a name like that, what do they call you as a newborn? How are you presented to the world? Did her mother send a note out to expectant friends and family saying  “Thanks for your suggestions – and while we definitely considered Chloe, Zoe, Tiffani, Ava, Britni, Taylor & Skyler, we’ve decided to go with Charisma!” And another thing. When were any of her peers old enough to know what this kid’s name meant? Like the neighbors’ children: “Jordan, can you say hi to Cha-ris -ma?” Do we suppose she was teased in grade school because her name is a pretty common vocab word? Call me old fashioned (or, in this case you could just go ahead and use my actual birth name which is Antiquity) but I think some kids nowadays have it tough with the outrageous names that carry so much pressure to be something. Or at least to look spectacular. Fortunately for Miss Carpenter, she is and she does, so it’s a moot point.

Today’s Poll:

Voice your choice in today’s featured poll and tell us which of these newly-rumored DWTS stars is your favorite:

1)    Bristol Palin

2)    David Hasselhoff

3)    Florence Henderson

4)    Michael Bolton

Post a Comment (0) 8:37 am on August 27, 2010

Who’s the Best Emmy Host?

So this Sunday we get to watch the 62nd Annual Primetime Emmy Awards. Now even without consulting the TV Guide one can’t possibly imagine people would be watching anything else, right? See I live in Los Angeles, which is, as it turns out, one great big shiny citrus-loving, morality-defying, Prius-driving, Ugg-wearing,  necktie-eschewing, vitamin-popping, box office-monitoring, content-providing Company Town. And if you told most people here that there was a citywide curfew, with martial law, and no operational traffic lights or open restaurants for nine hours on Sunday, no one would bat an eye. Last year I actually got to attend the Emmys with PCA President Fred Nelson which was beyond cool. This Sunday I’m hoping that any goodness in my microscopic heart will prevent me from asking the host of the child’s birthday party I’m attending how familiar they are with the term “poor planning”. But that’s just me. Still, I’m very excited about the Emmys, particularly since they’ve heaped all kinds of nominations upon superb new TV shows. That’s not to say I wasn’t a fan of The West Wing or all of those other “important” dramas of yore – because I was. When I actually watched them. But it’s kind of gratifying to see that Emmy voters seem to be as enamored of Modern Family, Glee, and Mad Men as a great many people I know and watch television with are. Now you may or may not know this past weekend was the Creative Arts Emmys – which is where they give awards for the more technically-oriented areas of TV – like casting and makeup and other production-type things. For some reason they also award TV guest star and reality show awards – which doesn’t seem particularly well thought-out since they’re still part of the most popular offerings on TV. (For example: how awesome is it that PCA’s own Jeff Probst won – again? Very. Why couldn’t we have seen that on TV? No idea.)  The way they handle this is that those winners will present awards on Sunday. Winners included Betty White, Ann- Margret, John Lithgow and Neil Patrick Harris. (Plus, insanely, terrifically talented as Neil Patrick Harris is – do you know anyone with opposable thumbs who doesn’t think Mike O’Malley should have won that guest-star Emmy for playing Kurt’s dad on Glee?) So what about Sunday? Will Mad Men triumph again? Will  Lost get some kind of posthumous recognition? Will Tina Fey say funnier things off the cuff than most TV scribes can come up with in a lifetime? Will any presenter ever make a TelePrompTer joke that’s genuinely funny? Will you watch? Do you care? And will host Jimmy Fallon inject the right amount of smart/endearing/cynical/ boyish charm into the show? Here’s hoping. In fact, today let’s take a peek at a few past Emmy hosts. And I’m going to skip the combination of five reality hosts in 2008 because a) we don’t have enough spots for their names in our poll and b) it was kind of a disaster. So now, voice your choice in today’s featured poll and let us know which of these four recent Emmy Hosts is your favorite:

1)    Neil Patrick Harris

2)    Conan O’Brien

3)    Ryan Seacrest

4)    Ellen DeGeneres

Post a Comment (1) 8:15 am on August 26, 2010

So a Werewolf Walks into a Courtroom…

So a few weeks back I suggested that Hollywood – just like the rest of the country – is tightening its belt. And it’s being demonstrated via a new kind of intolerance. Stars who could once command just about anything now get a whole lot less and like it. Actors demanding raises don’t necessarily receive them and are suddenly taking their marbles and going home (with tails between their legs). Brand new TV shows who don’t perform spectacularly right out of the gate get axed but quick (Sorry, The Bridge). Edward Norton – not considered a Team Player (and thus replaceable) gets the pink slip from Hulk and Mark Ruffalo steps into those green shoes. (Although things really aren’t that bad if Mark Ruffalo is subbing in, now are they?) And of course, in just a few weeks we may witness more carnage as the new fall shows bow. For example, even though there are tremendously high hopes resting on  Lone Star, Blue Bloods, Hawaii Five-0, The Defenders, No Ordinary Family and Raising Hope – the law of averages (or one of those statistical predictor things) says that within three months of airing at least two of these shows (and maybe more) will be history. So there definitely appears to be a trend – and it mirrors our current economic climate. And maybe cost-cutting movie studios are justifying their hard-line stances by saying  “times are tough and there are cutbacks,, but entertainment is something Americans are still spending what money they do have on, so let’s make it as good as it can be”. Trim the fat. Right?  (Isn’t that what you’d say if you fired popular actors who wanted too much money, or canceled TV shows that wanted to air say, a third episode? That’s what I’d say. And that’s how brutal it’s been in Hollywood. However, fear not. Because just when we thought Hollywood was getting too spartan, right when we were starting to believe  maybe there was no us and them anymore, we get a werewolf/RV lawsuit that will happily restore Tinseltown to the summit of Mt. Whatever. If you missed the headlines, it goes thus: TwiStar Taylor Lautner has sued an RV dealership for damages because they failed to provide him with a $300,000 tricked-out RV trailer which he ordered as his dressing room on the set of a new movie he’s filming.  On the RV’s arrival date, there was No Trailer for Taylor. According to the LA Times the lawsuit “cites “displeasure, annoyance and emotional distress” experienced by Lautner, and seeks  “unspecified damages”. Evidently the whole thing was handled by Lautner’s father Dan (because nothing says good idea like letting parents handle their teenaged millionaire’s business contracts and endorsements). Lautner’s people are suing this RV company for breach of contract and fraud. In fact, there may be a breach of contract and fraud – but what’s got people all a(T)witter is the whole “emotional distress” thing. What do you think? Do you think it’s outrageous? Or, do you think – as I do – that this is someone’s very smart PR move. Here’s why: let’s say you have a huge franchise with at least three acknowledged stars. There are Teams and everyone’s divided. Still, the fact remains that the other two leads are getting just a wee bit more attention than fair Taylor – adorable though he is. And he seems too young for a lot of tabloid-y romantic link-ups, faux, or otherwise, because, well, he just does. So how else do you generate press for your hot young thing that’s not icky – but that suggests he’s not to be trifled with — that he’s got needs, he’s got resources, and that he can play with the big boys? Sure it’s ridiculous, but you can’t tell me the next person who hires Taylor Lautner (and there will be many) won’t think twice about putting baby in the corner. They just won’t. In the end, no matter how rich or famous a person is, nobody really wants to get sued – do they? So actually I think this is kind of a genius move on somebody’s part. The only thing that I can’t understand is this: the vehicle in question is a “2006 Affinity Country Coach RV”. 2006?  For $300K can’t you find a later model? I have a 2007 VW and would have been more than happy to drive him around for a lot less cash. But that’s just me.

Today’s poll: Voice your choice in today’s featured poll and let us know which of these stars rumored to join the cast of Dancing With The Stars is your favorite:

1) Audrina Patridge

2) Brandy

3) Kurt Warner

4) The Situation

Post a Comment (2) 8:20 am on August 25, 2010

Katy Perry’s Here

Well, today is our Very Perry Tuesday and to celebrate Katy’s new record Teenage Dream, CBS is presenting an exclusive web concert – just for you (and you! And you over there. And say – in the back — you! And you, madam – and your friend.  And you, sir, as well...)

Here’s how it works: first you get  to catch Katy’s exclusive Live on Letterman webcast TONITE (8PM Eastern/5PM Pacific). To see it all just click on  http://www.cbs.com/late_night/liveonletterman/ ….and then of course if you still want more (and I’m pretty certain many, many will) tune into Katy on Letterman on TV where she’ll discuss a) the new album b) the truth behind being a California Gurl and c) Russell Brand. Just be careful if you go to this Live on Letterman site because you may, like me, get a little bit hooked (there’s a ton of cool concert stuff there). Plus I have to say that I’m now completely intrigued by this very talented young lady –  even more than before. Here’s why: I learned that PCA was doing this Katy Perry thing and was immediately curious because I liked a few songs but knew absolutely zero about her beyond that. Meanwhile my friend had just seen Katy and Russell Brand walking down the street a few weeks ago here in LA and commented on just how tall and elegant they both looked. Which is weird because usually when you see a celebrity on the street in Los Angeles they are more often than not small, unshaven, sometimes skulking, and always ultra-preoccupied. Not these two. So when I heard about Katy’s Letterman thing I read some articles and I was quite surprised. Did you know – if you’re a huge fan you probably do – that her parents are ministers and that she grew up listening to gospel music and actually released a gospel album? And that allegedly pop music was kind of verboten in the home?  I thought that was pretty wild. The gospel thing may explain why she has genuine pipes, and can sing powerfully as opposed to some of the flimsy chirpers we have singing today. But here’s the other thing I found stunning– and let me preface this by saying that I’m not so naïve as to believe in overnight success stories. But astonishing to me was just how many ups and downs she’s had professionally, and the fact that she just couldn’t get the attention (we now know) she deserved for quite some time before she hit big. Of course now she’s a massive double Grammy -nominated star. So it seems like hers is rather a remarkable story. In spite of what appears to be a ton of false starts which would easily have sidelined others, this gal persevered. And now you can check out her web concert and then watch her, literally, on Letterman later and you can even have the new album playing in the background at the same time. Because Katy Perry may have kissed a girl, but she also could have kissed a career goodbye on many occasions and managed to stay with it, which in my book definitely makes her one of the more appealing and impressive Calfornia Gurls I know.

Voice your choice in today’s featured poll and tell us which Katy Perry song is your favorite:

1) I Kissed A Girl

2) California Gurls

3) Hot N’ Cold

4) Teenage Dream

Post a Comment (2) 8:20 am on August 24, 2010

Our Favorite Celebrity Marriages

Before we get to today’s chat, don’t forget to check out Katy Perry’s exclusive webcast concert tomorrow at 8 PM (ET). She’ll also be a guest on Letterman, and it’s all in celebration of her new record Teenage Dream which we can get to tomorrow as well. More on Katy later but I wanted to give you a heads up because the web concert’s going to be cool.

So Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer got married this weekend. The former precocious Oscar winner  (if you’re wondering: a) she was 11, b) it was for The Piano and c) nope, she wasn’t the youngest – that was Tatum O’Neal who won for Paper Moon twenty years prior) and the dreamy brooding English actor who plays a dreamy brooding Southern vampire tied the knot in Malibu. They’re costars on True Blood, the hit vampire TV series (I guess nowadays one has to say the other hit vampire TV series) and the word is they began dating long before going public. With costars it’s ultra risky because if they happen to break up in the middle of filming, it can equal the largest migraine in North America for everyone else working on the project. But apparently this one stuck, they finally went public and now they’ve gone and made it legal. She’s 28 and he’s 40, with two kids from prior relationships. So let’s look at celebrity couples in general. To which enough ink has been devoted to keep tabloids alive for decades. How come we care so much? From the time of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton’s tempestuous union straight through to the reportedly coupled stars of Twilight today, we’ve long been obsessed with celebrity romance. But precisely why is this a phenomenon – and such a uniquely American one at that? I remember being told when I was younger that the reason we loved entertainment  stars’ pairings was that we had no real monarchy like other countries do, and that no other profession (besides sports) creates the sort of rabid devotion from fans that TV and movies do. They’re our royalty. Because when you have a star with tremendous wattage and the capacity to alter peoples’ blood pressure with a wink or a smile, and you couple that person with someone else who’s equally glamorous/talented/eye-catching, you produce the perfect storm of buzzy goodness. Now at the other end of the spectrum we have the 1950’s, when movie studios frequently arranged Hollywood marriages in order to a) bolster someone’s career by attaching them to a better-known star, b) hide the fact that a person was gay or c) both. Even today, there’s rarely a high profile celebrity romance or marriage that doesn’t get picked apart by gossip columnists, alleging  this or suspecting that.  And why do celebrities so frequently marry within their own species? Is it because they shop at the same celebrity stores, attend the same celebrity art openings, and encounter each other at celebrity car dealerships? Perhaps, but I think there’s more to it than that. Having met a few people who work in TV and film, I can honestly say that their lives, while rewarding and often obscenely lucrative, are frequently devoid of personal freedom and time away from it all. Many of them have terrible hours, work nonstop and live under the watchful and very critical eye of a capricious industry that could spit them out at any time. They’re nervous, tired, suspicious of everyone whom they haven’t known since adolescence, and lots of them spend an inordinate amount of time trying to return to their birth weight. Thus it’s often difficult for them to find a mate who can understand/respect/stand them during the eleven minutes a day when no one else is looking. And who better to understand these it’s-actually-tough-but-no-one-would-believe-me lives? Other celebrities. They can handle the hours and the weirdness. Does the fact that they’re stars in the first place with impossible egos, dreadful tempers, and the hourly potential to ruin it all with vice and infidelity account for their frequent suuuuper-messy breakups? Absolutely. Which is why we care. Because who doesn’t love a spectacle? Who isn’t fascinated by the idea of these lives – which seem so much more exciting than our own – getting tangled  up with other good-looking & exciting messes?   (I realize there are millions of people who aren’t fascinated, but since you’re reading this blog in the first place, you’re probably pretty well-versed in this biz). So now, let’s have you weigh in on some celebrity pairings. Voice your choice in today’s featured poll and let us know which of these married celebrity couples is your favorite:

1)    Will & Jada Pinkett Smith

2)    Kevin Bacon & Kyra Sedgewick

3)    Javier Bardem & Penelope Cruz

4)    David Beckham & Victoria Beckham

Post a Comment (0) 7:47 am on August 23, 2010

Jen, Jason, Nanny McP & Deadly Fish Take on Stallone’s War Chest

I would watch Jason Bateman in pretty much anything (besides maybe a long line at the DMV). And today’s a good day to manifest that sentiment because The Switch is opening in theaters everywhere. Plus, it also stars Jennifer Aniston, Jeff Goldblum and Patrick Wilson. Not a lot of downside. This will, I am almost certain, fall into my “Forgotten Two “ Category (a very common listing for comedies where they may not be The Best Thing You’ve Ever Seen but you sure forget where you were for two hours. Which you have to admit –  in the anxiety-ridden climes of today  — is not such a bad thing). And so what if the trailer gives us 89% of the movie’s plot. There’s still time before the movie begins to try and guess what the remaining six lines of dialogue might be. Now, is anyone bothered by the advertising campaign for this movie? While I like to think of myself as somewhat progressive, I’m still not 100% sure that movie studios ever really need to display sample cups on movie posters, regardless of the bodily fluids contained therein. It just seems a little gratuitous. But that’s just me. Also in theaters, and speaking of gratuitous, let’s not forget about Piranha 3D. Which looks like a supremely gory, bloody, shocking (but not unpredictable) story. In fact, the formula is totally similar to many others we’ve seen, as in: a cataclysmic geological event unleashes a herd/flock/family/scores of deadly ________ s, who must feed as soon as possible. The  aggressive ______s then discover and attack an unsuspecting/vacationing/unwitting group of  hikers/campers/partygoers/lovers/children. This formula may also be one for box office success, since it’s in 3D (all the rage this year) and it will likely attract the crowd that’s already seen The Expendables and is now looking for an adrenaline rush. Plus let’s not forget P3D also stars Richard Dreyfus and Christopher Lloyd. Another flick in theaters this weekend is one of the best reviewed  kids’ movies of the summer — Nanny McPhee Returns. Now your young boys may want to go see Piranha but if you can coax them into this, Emma Thompson is getting nothing but glowing reviews for her portrayal of the lady who “appears when she’s not wanted and leaves when she is”.  Then, for bored teens who may have tired of Twilight, there’s Vampires Suck from the guys who brought us Date Movie and Epic Movie. We can probably expect lowbrow, lowest common denominator stuff, although who knows, maybe the Twi-Mania is so extreme these days that the hordes will flock to see even something that parodies the beloved franchise. There’s also the latest Bow Wow starrer, Lottery Ticket which looks pretty funny – this one’s about a guy who has to keep his greedy friends and family away from his $370 million dollar golden ticket.  So there you have it. I’m guessing that The Expendables will continue to dominate at the box office and that these other newbies will fall in line behind it. Fortunately for Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston, I’ve already bought my tickets to The Switch. Which should put them ahead of the pack right out of the gate. For our poll, since Piranha 3D is opening, let’s take a look at some other scary movies with animals gone wild. Voice your choice in today’s featured poll and tell us which of these creature infestation films is your favorite:

1)    Arachnophobia

2)    Anaconda

3)    Tremors

4)    Snakes on a Plane

Post a Comment (0) 8:19 am on August 20, 2010

Recent Comments

About Liz Warner

People's Choice staffer Liz Warner has been delivering news, entertainment & arts coverage to entertainment fans for years, most recently on air and online at LA's Indie 103.1 FM. Liz is also an author and actress who appears frequently in both LA and New York. Her solo monologue show The Wandering Eye premiered at HBO's Aspen Comedy Festival. Her critically acclaimed first book of essays, "Ditched by Dr. Right" (Random House) was published July 2005. Most recently, she was one half of the "He Said/She Said" Official Blogging Team for ABC's The Bachelor, and she is also announcer for Twentieth Century Fox TV's new series "Wedlock or Deadlock". Her second book is due for publication in 2011.

Twitter