Amber Tamblyn talks at length with Buzzfeed about Quentin Tarantino, male complicity, female anger and #MeToo. [Buzzfeed]
Chadwick Boseman talks about Black Panther in Mr. Porter. [LaineyGossip]
Winona Ryder is the Hot Slut of 2017. [Dlisted]
Someone quit their job by announcing it on a cake. [OMG Blog]
Weird things happened on The Passion of the Christ. [Looper]
JK Rowling continues to piss off her fans. [Pajiba]
Tristan Thompson sent flowers to Khloe Kardashian. [JustJared]
Morgan Freeman stars in a Super Bowl commercial. [Seriously OMG WTF]
Sh-t, I’ll probably watch The Gilded Age. [Jezebel]
I’ve got some mixed feelings about Amber Tamblyn. I find her response to her husband’s actions lacking.
I know what you mean BUT as she says, she can’t be held accountable for what he said. And it sounds like she also took steps to ensure Yi was heard, so, not much else to do short of divorcing. Perhaps she has helped him grow since his “comedy”.
But what can she say? We don’t know what they talked in private, I think it would really awful to be tearing your husband down in social media. And besides, he could perfectly speak for himself, I don’t get why the wife has to get in the conflict too.
What would your ideal response even be? She didn’t owe anything to the public, only to Charlene. And she seems to have resolved that privately. If she’d had some public tete-a-tete with Charlene, or publicly castigated her husband, it would have come off as Amber trying to get the stink off her.
his non apology was so bad, like im sorry you arent hip enough for my racist humor
she’s not responsible for his actions however many years ago now, but his apology to me shows he isnt any different. now that being a self appointed twitter feminist is her main gig, i feel like she would have torn that apart coming from anyone else
overall i find her sort of self serving
yes to this… I am having trouble articulating exactly why I find her problematic. When the sh*t hit the fan in her own house… it was suddenly different… it was humor. Just like when sh*t hit the fan with lena dunham’s friend.. it was different. I have said it before on this site… there is something about a celebrity “activist” that I just find so condescending and hypocritical.
I don’t know what she should have done. Her response doesn’t sit well with me. I don’t like this from the article…
…she added that “two things can be true at once.” As she put it, “David can feel emphatically that what he did was not racist, or a racist gesture, and I believe that’s true..” To me, this comes off as an excuse. David Cross is in his 50s.. he knows what racist behavior looks like. And, she says that people should not hold women accountable for the actions of their spouses or partners… but how does she hold male celebrities accountable for Weinstein’s behavior? She knows who she married.. and I highly doubt this is first incident of David Cross’ accidental racism.
Re Rowling… Do we really need Dumbledore love scenes to prove he’s gay? This is a character that’s interesting beyond his sexuality or romances. Not to mention, in the books his (platonic, as far as I know) relationship with Grindewald happened before whatever we are going to see in this installment. Why are people making a fuss about this? I would understand if they had suddenly turned Dumbledore into a straight dude, but come on. I get representation, but not everything has to be explicit.
No one is expecting a full on sex scene, this will be a PG-13 movie, but an acknowledgement of the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindewald is fine. As a queer person, seeing representation on screen would be amazing. And kids who are questioning, can you imagine the (positive) impact it would have? LGBTQAI kids kill themselves at a higher rate than other kids that age. So Rowling’s and Yates do need to be called out for basically putting Dumbledore back in his closet.
Ok, but what acknowledgement can we get aside from some meaningful look or maybe some reminiscence? Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s relationship was platonic and intellectually passionate and I think that should be portrayed. And just like people could read between the lines in the book, they can in the movie. The timeline wouldn’t allow for any kind of loving interaction between them, unless they resort to flashbacks, which are rarely good in movies.
“And just like people could read between the lines in the book”
Isn’t it interesting that it’s LGBTQ people who always have to “read between the lines”? They’ll go the Star Trek Beyond and Beauty and the Beast route the relationship will barely be hinted at (can’t give up that sweet Chinese box office!) whereas if one of them was female it would be a sexual tension fest. I’m not LGBTQ but if you can’t empthize with their frustration I really don’t know what to tell you.
It’s all a shrug to me, that first movie was a waste of time. I saw it described perfectly on twitter: Fantastic Beasts is JK Rowling’s Star Wars prequels. A disappointing lazy mess.
Harry’s romance with Cho was shown. Ron and Hermione’s romance was shown. Harry and Ginny’s. These are all major characters “interesting beyond (their) sexuality”. When you are happy to depict heterosexual relationships (and please note I use the word relationship, not “sex scenes” — no one is asking for or expecting those) but leave any hint of homosexual relationships out, it is “other-izing” them. Representation matters.
it doesnt have to be explicit, i already canceled the series over depp, so no loss here
Those relationships were happening in the present and between teenagers, and they were almost never the focus of the story. They were important to show because it was about kids growing up and going through those pains. And they never said they’d leave any hint of homosexual relationship out, Yates just said it wasn’t “explicit”. Meaning no love scenes (which wouldn’t fit anyway) and probably no one saying “Hey, I’m gay”. I would understand the outrage if this was a movie about Dumbledore’s teenage years, but at the time this movie happens, he and Grindelwald are enemies.
No one is asking for sex scenes in a children’s movie, just clear representation.
LGBT+ individuals are more than their sexuality, but like most human beings, our sexuality is a part of our lives. I don’t expect Dumbledore to make out with Grindelwald after they become enemies. I would expect him to reference or reflect on the fact that part of his failure to view his actions objectively was because HE WAS IN LOVE WITH HIM. Because THAT definitely had an impact on the story.
Well I agree with you about those possibilities, and I’m not sure why people are assuming there won’t be any of that. We really should wait and see until the movie is out before people are up in arms without knowing what exactly they are complaining about. Although I don’t know if we can count on Johnny Depp to show proper emotions anymore.
I’m not writing it off as a possibility, but Rowling’s response is really tone deaf given the political situation in America and Europe right now. Not doing the basics for representation right now is hurtful to those legitimately afraid of losing their basic rights.
Congrats to Winona Ryder. It’s not an easy contest, and you really have to stand out to win Hot Slut of the Year.
Re story of Mel’s passion: it is disturbing. Since there is a converstaion going on now about the abuse of power in Hollywood, I think what crazy Mel does falls very much into that category. He is crazy, abusive and obsessive.
He is SO effin awful. If Aronofsky gets accused of abusing his actors why the hell doesn’t Gibson get called out?
So Tamblyn is not responsible for her husband, but everyone else is responsible for Weinstein. Got it.