SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Where the GIT's are going -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neeka who wrote (92463)2/16/2005 1:27:09 PM
From: country bob  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 225578
 
It's a form of art!......sorta.



To: Neeka who wrote (92463)2/16/2005 4:09:50 PM
From: country bob  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 225578
 
Yes she is VERY refined, and a lot of fun too! I am just not an art gallery type person. I'm more what you would call, lets see....how can I put this?....the "velvet matador" type!



To: Neeka who wrote (92463)2/17/2005 1:25:05 AM
From: sandintoes  Respond to of 225578
 
See...they are starting to eat their own...

FEBRUARY 18 - 24, 2005
Deadline Hollywood
Graydon Carter's Hollywood Ending
Vanity Fair editor reportedly calling friends scumbags on eve of Oscars
by NIKKI FINKE


Vanity Fair Editor Graydon Carter, who famously used his show-biz friendships to benefit himself financially, has been calling his Hollywood pals “scumbags” behind their backs in these weeks leading up to his magazine’s annual Oscar night party, L.A. Weekly has learned. Sources say Carter is even naming names, including his one-time mentor Jeffrey Katzenberg and his $100,000 benefactor Brian Grazer. Both men were unaware they’d been badmouthed by the editor during a spate of sloppy emotional jags at cocktail parties, dinner engagements, in the office and on the phone: Katzenberg for supposedly dropping Carter from the mogul’s A-list, and Grazer for supposedly ratting out Carter’s role in that A Beautiful Mind payola scandal. Grazer’s diss comes within days of his seeing Carter socially in New York and being invited to attend the editor’s forthcoming wedding.

Since Oscars is a silly season anyway, let us speculate about more folly in the future. Hollywood is a malevolent enough town that the denizens, scumbags or not, don’t just get mad, they get even. Any fallout from Carter’s recent purgings (more details later) could sink V.F.’s Academy Awards soiree February 27.

“He’s an angry and complicated man who’s very jealous of the people he’s supposed to be friends with,” stated one entertainment-industry source close to the contretemps. “The reaction to this will be just as explosive as you would imagine. People would think twice whether they’re going to the party. They’re going to be pissed.”

About Carter’s “scumbags” phraseology, Vanity Fair spokeswoman Beth Kseniak expressed surprise and told me Tuesday, “I’ve never heard Graydon use that word.”

After checking with Carter, she said he does remember recently discussing Katzenberg, “and what Graydon said was, ‘He’s all business.’ But he says he’s never, ever, had that conversation you describe, with anyone, about Grazer.”

Katzenberg issued this statement to L.A. Weekly: “I have nothing but the highest respect for Graydon. He’s a brilliant editor who has done an amazing job at Vanity Fair, which is the magazine I look forward to reading every month.”

Grazer's office gave me this comment on Wednesday: “Brian considers Graydon to be a really close friend and he's going to go to Graydon's wedding and he's going to go to the Vanity Fair party.”

What makes the above even more interesting is the news that the big man of glossy mags appears to be biting the hands that feed him on the other side of the Atlantic as well. On Monday, the British press reported that Carter caused a ruckus inside parent company Condé Nast’s British headquarters by planning a story on the “London Lewinsky,” who is also the wife of the publisher of British Vogue. (The woman, Spectator publisher and Los Angeles homegirl Kimberly Quinn, had an affair with British Home Secretary David Blunkett, which led to his resignation in December.) The Evening Standard reported that the internal controversy went at least as high up as Jonathan Newhouse, chairman of Condé Nast International.

“Graydon says Jonathan Newhouse has never had a conversation with him about the Quinn story,” V.F.’s Kseniak told me. “We don’t comment on stories that we are, or are not, working on. I wouldn’t take my cues from The Standard.”

The issue here isn’t the merits of the Quinn story. (It should be fodder for Vanity Fair.) Or even an editor like Graydon shitting on show-biz folk. (But these are his friends.) Instead, the focus should be on just how self-destructive is Graydon Carter?

Antyhing that Carter does to hurt Vanity Fair’s Oscar party could not come at a worse time for the magazine or for himself. He just canceled the publication’s upcoming Cannes Film Festival gala, even though it generates enormous European publicity as the hot ticket every year, because he inexplicably scheduled his nuptials around the same time in May. Also, this year’s Academy Awards is extremely star-challenged, with the nominees and presenters generating only dim wattage. V.F. fete organizers are panicking over a possible paucity of celebs inside Morton’s.

But all that pales in comparison to Graydon’s recent pal-and-pay scandal and the debate which has raged over whether it would spoil V.F.’s Oscar night.

There’s a lingering stink after both The New York Times and Los Angeles Times outed Graydon’s ethical lapses for landing, or trying to land, various lucrative Hollywood deals, including that $100,000 Universal Pictures payoff for merely suggesting to Grazer that the book A Beautiful Mind might make a good movie.

More recently, there was the critical and commercial failure of Carter’s anti-Bush book, What We’ve Lost, despite the help of half a dozen V.F. staffers; the humiliation of another four years on the outs with the Dubya White House; the embarrassment of having a bit part in that flop remake of Alfie; the self-serving nature of featuring a flattering oral history on the New York Post’s Page Six. (Not long after, the New York Post seemed to return the favor, predicting that 2004 will be “the most profitable year in the magazine’s storied history” and noting that Carter was seated at Condé Nast chairman Si Newhouse’s table at the annual Christmas luncheon. But the New York Daily News this week said the just released numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulation for the last six months of 2004 show VF's average newsstand sale "tumbled" a steep 22.5% from an especially strong series of issues a year earlier. The mag's total circulation fell 5.4% to 1.1 million. Noted the paper: "Newsstand sales are generally viewed as a measure of a mag's heat, as well as a sign of whether an editor is bringing in new readers.")

There was also the oversight of not being named to succeed James Truman as Condé Nast’s editorial director, though Carter at one time coveted the job. Not to mention the distinct lack of buzz for this year’s stale Hollywood issue, which itself provoked questions about Ellen Barkin’s photo spread and whether it was a sop to her husband, Ron Perelman, the Revlon magnate, who is a Carter pal.

Speaking of friends, sources tell L.A. Weekly that, over the past three weeks, Graydon inside and outside his magazine offices has been attacking the very Hollywood players he plays with: heads of big media, heads of studios, heads of networks, heads of agencies, managers, producers, etc.

The insiders — who are from the boldfaced ranks of New York’s media, business and literati circles — say Carter seems to launch his diatribes the same way: “I don’t know how anyone works there . . . ,” before segueing into an overwrought condemnation of the entertainment business in general — “Hollywood is filled with nothing but scumbags” — and then a specific targeting of persons whom Carter individually called “scumbags.”

The two people most often named by Graydon, according to these insiders, are Katzenberg and Grazer — the same two Hollywood bigwigs who have been regulars at his Oscar party, who see him socially in L.A. and N.Y., who once offered him an absurdly lucrative gig to work for their joint Internet venture, the short-lived Pop.com.

The insiders quote Carter as complaining that the DreamWorks partner doesn’t act “like a real friend” to him anymore. “Graydon says Jeffrey calls him twice a year, harangues him on projects, and then he doesn’t hear from him again,” one source related. Another heard Carter grouse about the huge money Katzenberg made from the recent DreamWorks animation IPO (initial public offering).

Someone close to Katzenberg expressed shock at the revelation, speculating that if there is bad blood between the two men, it may be an Oscar-weekend rivalry.

For three years now, Katzenberg has organized a smash night-before-the-Academy-Awards party that’s the exact opposite of Carter’s glitzy photo op — casual, no media, no photographers, “nothing but a good time,” one insider explained. “It’s an unbelievably star-packed event at the Beverly Hills Hotel, so Graydon may see it as a serious threat to his czardom as the Oscar party giver.”

Actually, it’s Katzenberg who should have a bone to pick with Carter, not vice versa. The last time Katzenberg attended the V.F. party, Graydon sat him at a terrible table, even though this was the year that DreamWork’s Gladiator was nominated and later won. Carter put Katzenberg not just “very, very far back in the room,” according to a source, but also seated him with Monica Lewinsky. “To someone who had been a huge Clinton person, like Jeffrey, it was like a slap in the face.”

As for Grazer, he was Carter’s first real friend in Hollywood; later, Carter would even join Grazer’s mogul gang on vacations to Cuba, Brazil and the like. Sources quote Carter as saying that he believes it was the Imagine producer who ratted him out to reporters for receiving that A Beautiful Mind finder’s fee paid by Universal at Grazer’s request because of Carter’s nagging. A source close to Grazer confirms that, after the stories came out, “There was tension, between Graydon and Brian and others mentioned around that time. It put Graydon on the outs with the people he’s counted on.”

The source continues, “As far as I knew, it got all resolved. But I don’t know what ‘resolved’ means in this town. Do you just file it in your mental Rolodex? If that’s true, then it’s not nice ragging on your friends. It doesn’t sound like it has any morality to it.

“But, what else is new?”

laweekly.com



To: Neeka who wrote (92463)2/17/2005 1:32:53 AM
From: sandintoes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 225578
 
More on the Oscars...I don't care, but I know you've tried to see all the pictures.

This year will be strange, The Passion of the Christ wasn't nominated except for Art Direction, Makeup and Original Score...It grossed more than any movie this year, and yet is getting snubbed...oh well..that's Hollywood.

Deadline Hollywood
Have They No Shame?
Oscar gets a razzie for kissing Marty’s and Harvey’s butts. Plus, who’ll win and who’ll lose.
by NIKKI FINKE


We’ve come to expect year-round insane decisions from those studio lunatics, like the fact that sources tell me Warner’s at first refused to fund what became its best hope in eons for a Best Picture Oscar. But it’s that loathsome time of year again when the inmates take over the asylum, so we’re stuck ranting against our own Hollywood lunatics who came out with this week’s sanity-defying Oscar nominations. So before we get to my projected winners, I have to ask: What the hell is wrong with you people?

Eleven nominations for a mess of a movie like The Aviator and a monster of a man like Harvey Weinstein is just incomprehensible, as is the snubbing of The Motorcycle Diaries, Fahrenheit 9/11, and even The Passion of the Christ. You hypocrites pretend that the Academy Awards honor motion-picture artistry, while always keeping an eye on popularity to stay in step with Main Street. Yet you overlook the year’s three most talked-about movies that had the vision thing. And don’t even try to argue that daring subject matter like humanizing commie icon Che Guevara or turning Dubya into a war criminal and Jews into the killers of Christ was too hot to handle, when you were willing to praise films about abortion (Vera Drake), euthanasia (Million Dollar Baby, The Sea Within), genocide (Hotel Rwanda), drug addiction (Ray), paranoia (The Aviator), pedophilia (Finding Neverland) and wild, monkey sex (Sideways).

That said, it’s not just that passing on Passion (only three nominations, and only in the non-marquee categories of Art Direction, Makeup and Original Score) flew in the face of everything the Academy is supposed to reward. No other movie this year, rightly or wrongly, was as risky an endeavor, even if it did pay off. (Talk about arty. Much of the movie was made in the Aramaic and Latin languages, with few subtitles. Remember when Dances With Wolves won Best Picture because of its use of Sioux Lakota dialect?) Irony of ironies, because of its prejudice against Passion, Hollywood will have in its arsenal even less ammunition to fend off those anti-Semitic bigots complaining how America’s entertainment industry is controlled and contaminated by “The Jews.”

As for Weinstein, he appears to have been the beneficiary of an Oscar pity party after getting kicked to the curb by Disney. But I predict Harv’s humiliations are only just beginning. (And I’m not only talking about the inevitable lawsuit with Disney over any realistic valuation of Miramax.) Recent history has shown that, while Weinstein can certainly score an Academy nomination, he can’t steal the awards anymore. His movies, such as The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Cider House Rules, In the Bedroom and Cold Mountain, have come up virtually empty on Oscar night. I predict that same fate awaits The Aviator this time around. As for Harvey, he may have to rethink his moviemaking formula, which depends heavily on his amply demonstrated ability to sweet-talk talent into working for him for bupkis in exchange for Academy gold. Here’s hoping the stupid stars wise up.

Meanwhile, Marty Scorsese deserves this year’s Dumb and Dumber award, and I don’t mean Best Director. You’d think he would have learned his lesson in 2003 when Gangs of New York was nominated, and he and Harvey were bitch-slapped by the Academy for not only dragging poor old Robert Wise into their over-the-top Oscar politicking, but then deceiving voters by having a Miramax publicist ghost-write a praiseful column on Scorsese that appeared under the beloved wrinkly’s byline. (Kudos to John Horn of the Los Angeles Times for busting them on it.) Now, all of a sudden, Robert De Niro is talking publicly that Taxi Driver 2 is in the works with Scorsese. Sources tell me that Raging Bull 2 is also being considered, and that Harvey is going to eventually join Bobby and Marty in this sick joke, along with financier Graham King. (For the record, a Miramax mouthpiece played coy about Weinstein’s involvement.)

I’m told this sequel mania is intended to remind Academy voters of all the great movies in Scorsese’s body of work. But I think it will have an unintended effect: to remind Academy voters what disgusting moneygrubbers both De Niro and Scorsese have become in recent years, culminating in their even thinking about revisiting two great classic American films just to score a coupla bucks. It’s Francis Ford Coppola all over again, and look what happened to him after the critical and commercial failure of Godfather 3. In Scorsese’s case, this kind of overreaching is committing Oscar suicide.

I’ve reported in the past about people on the Miramax payroll launching verbal salvos against Saving Private Ryan and A Beautiful Mind. This year’s badmouthing war is targeting Million Dollar Baby, which is up for Best Picture against Miramax’s The Aviator. Granted you gotta have steel balls to take on Clint over anything, much less his movie and its euthanasia subplot, especially if you’re a dickwad like Michael Medved and the rest of those right-wing wackos. Far more interesting than the usual mudslinging is that word from inside Eastwood’s production company is that Warner’s did not want to underwrite Million Dollar Baby. (But watch the studio gang preen come Oscar night.) That, more than any heavily financed campaign, should help the movie clinch Best Picture, since it makes Clint’s project seem almost indie.

Now, for my peek inside the twisted mind of the Academy.

BEST ACTOR

This ain’t Johnny Depp’s year, no matter how much we love him. That Leo scored a nomination, undeserved, since it robbed Liam Neeson of a spot for Kinsey, is reward enough for the Miramax machine. In a perfect world, Don Cheadle would win. But he ain’t as cool as Clint or fine like Foxx. Now, about that upset. Foxx is expected to win. But who in hell really thought Eastwood could chew up the scenery when most of his contemporaries are gumming their food? Talk that it’s the performance of a lifetime is Hollywood code for We’d better give it to the guy now, before he croaks. Foxx has struck just that right ass-kissing “I’m not worthy” chord wooing Oscar voters. I still think Jamie will win in this category, but if he doesn’t, he won’t come away empty-handed. Keep reading.

BEST ACTRESS

In that same perfect world, the dumpy English broad from Vera Drake would be the winner, just like Judi Dench before her. But it’s not Dame Imelda Staunton — yet — so forget her. No one on the planet saw Maria Full of Grace. Kate Winslet would have been a shoo-in for supporting, but not in this category. So the contest is between Annette Bening and Hilary Swank. Bening has the sympathy vote down cold. After all, she plays house with a has-been. But hers is a good performance in a lousy movie vs. Swank’s good performance in a great movie. Besides, Hilary dies.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Paul Giamatti deserves this hands down, but he wasn’t even nominated, because the category isn’t called Best Annoying Actor, now is it? Alan Alda is best known as the new Huell Howser of PBS, not as a movie actor these days. With so many good American performances this year, no one’s gonna give Oscar to Clive Owen, a Brit. It’s between Thomas Haden Church, best known as a dreadful TV actor, and Morgan Freeman, who’s played God, the U.S. president and Nelson Mandela. Only idiots would deny him the Oscar. But if that big upset we spoke of earlier happens, Foxx wins for his work in the wrong film, Collateral.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

No one plays blind or deaf, although there is a lot of hair dyeing. If the Academy decides to pull a Marisa Tomei, it’s Natalie Portman. But I doubt they can overlook her near-career-ending woodenness in Star Wars. This isn’t Cate Blanchett’s year. And Sophie Okonedo doesn’t stand a chance. Laura Linney is Meryl Streep with a nicer nose. But Virginia Madsen will win, because Hollywood loves ex-sex-symbol survivors who, when their careers grew cold, had the good taste to avoid suicide.

BEST DIRECTOR

There’s a reason “hack” is part of his name, so don’t consider Taylor Hackford for Ray. Alexander Payne is on the way up and Mike Leigh on the way down. What’s needed is middle ground. The East Coast is pulling for Marty. The West Coast is clamoring for Clint. If the Academy trends to Eastwood for Best Actor, they may give Best Director to Scorsese as a sop. If not, Clint wins.

BEST PICTURE

Not in my lifetime will a movie about wine win the Oscar. Finding Neverland should never have been nominated. We’ll never know when the Academy will be ready to vote for a black film like Ray, or a blacker film like Hotel Rwanda, for Best Picture. (That’s right; I’m saying racism is rampant in Hollywood.) C’mon, this town hated Howard Hughes — there are still actresses who won’t admit they slept with him — plus, his Nixon slush-fund contributions make him non-P.C. The voters will cry Million Dollar Baby.