- Sarah Jessica Parker hosts $40K-a-plate fundraiser for Pres. Obama in her home
- Penelope Cruz’s dirty hair & beige Michael Kors: beautiful or busted?
- Kate Winslet called “rude, mean and nasty” by Massachusetts locals
- LeAnn Rimes tweets Brandi a photo of Jake Cibrian, Brandi doesn’t respond
- Rihanna doesn’t like her new size 0 ass, says she’s skinny because of stress
- Does Justin Theroux hate “living in a fishbowl” as Jennifer Aniston’s piece?
- Lindsay Lohan is the living embodiment of cracked-out cognitive dissonance
- Is Chris Evans headed for a “nervous breakdown” or merely an existential crisis?
- Prince William is “painfully embarrassed” by Duchess Kate’s flirtations with Harry
- Mad Men bitch-fight: January Jones “is completely jealous” of Jessica Paré
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 08:56 AM PDT
All morning, I've been reading all about Sarah Jessica Parker and Anna Wintour's fundraiser for President Obama. Is it really that unusual for celebrities to host a fundraiser for Obama? Media outlets are going kind of crazy about it, that's why I ask. At the end of the day, I think less than 50 people were at the fundraiser (not including Secret Service) – so why is it such a big deal? Because the fundraiser took place in SJP's West Village townhouse, and because Anna Wintour (a "bundler" for Obama) was the co-host of the event. New York Magazine had a great piece on what was going down outside of the fundraiser – well-heeled chaos, basically, in which some very rich people couldn't shop for their wine. There was also this great story about a potential bitch-fight between SJP and Wintour:
I mean… I would insist on a professional cleaning service too, if I was hosting the president. But to completely redecorate the place? I wonder how much SJP ended up shilling out to get her house Obama-ready.
Would you like to know more about the event? Some guests: Meryl Streep, Olivia Wilde and Jason Sudeikis, Michael Kors, Andy Cohen and Aretha Franklin, who left 20 minutes after the president arrived (??). Guess who didn't show up? Matthew Broderick!! True, he's doing a Broadway show right now and he had to perform. But if you were hosting the president, why not A) Arrange it on a night when you're off or B) Call in sick. During his speech, Obama told the assembled crowd:
That's cute about James Wilkie clapping. SJP was really proud that she was hostessing too, and during her introductory speech, she praised Michelle Obama as “radiant and extraordinary… You’ve done amazing important things these past four years. . . I very much look forward to the things you’re going to accomplish in the next four years.”
After the event, the Obamas headed to another fundraiser at the Plaza Hotel, where Mariah Carey and Alicia Keys performed. All in all, Obama raised a lot of money last night.
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 08:13 AM PDT
I can't keep up with all of the film festivals these days – I thought the Los Angeles Film Festival didn't happen until October or November? But maybe I'm thinking about the AFI Film Fest or something? Anyway, last night the LA Film Festival began with the premiere of Woody Allen's new movie, To Rome With Love. Penelope Cruz stars in the film – this is her second collaboration with Woody, I believe. The first collaboration was Vicky Christina Barcelona, and Penelope ended up winning a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for the role. In that film, she played a crazy, temperamental, bisexual artist. In this film, Penelope plays a hooker. Because Woody Allen writes so well for women.
Anyway, Penelope wore this Michael Kors which is… okay. I'm not in love with the color, but it's not bad on Penelope with her beautiful, dark coloring. On a blonde, it would look like oatmeal fug. My biggest problem with this look? Penelope's beautiful hair looks dirty and oily. What's the deal? Is that a style choice or is she really walking the carpet with dirty, unwashed hair?
Here's the trailer for To Rome With Love. It looks cute. Sort of. I do think it's nice that Woody is mining some fresh young talent like Jesse Eisenberg and Ellen Page.
I'm also including a photo of Julie Delpy because I love her un-Botoxed face, and Woody and Soon Yi. On the red carpet, Woody was asked about his recent "dinner" with Lindsay Lohan, and he said this: "I wouldn’t hesitate to use her in a movie because she’s a very talented girl. That was a social dinner [not for a movie]… I would not hesitate if I had something for her I would certainly call her.” Gross.
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 07:10 AM PDT
You know I'm not currently a member of The Kate Winslet Fan Club, but as I read this story in Radar/Star Magazine, I did feel a surge of sympathy for Winslet. The story actually reminds me of a tabloid story about Meryl Streep that we covered a few months ago – remember how one of Meryl's Connecticut neighbors was all "OMG, Meryl is such a bitch!!"? That's what this is like. Kate Winslet is working on a film in Massachusetts – I'm including some photos of her at work (with Ned RockNRoll in tow). Apparently, Winslet isn't super-friendly with the residents of this small town. So now the locals are flocking to the tabloids to bitch about Winslet.
So Kate is a massive bitch for just putting her head down and going to work rather than glad-handing the populace like a politician? She's not running for office – she isn't required to spend time with random people milling about. That being said… she could have spent some time with the locals, but I think the problem is bad staff work on the part of the film production and Team Winslet. Surely a producer or an assistant would have mentioned to Kate, "Hey, can you just go over there and sign a few autographs and smile for some photos? It would go a long way towards keeping the peace." But whatever. I don't care for Kate, but this isn't adding any fuel to my fire.
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 07:08 AM PDT
LeAnn Rimes went on another Twitter bender. Some of it was justified and kind of nice, some of it not so much. First, the nice. LeAnn's ex-husband, Dean Sheremet, tweeted about his grandmother's passing. LeAnn first tweeted, "@Deansheremet I'm so sorry. She looks so beautiful here, always did. Surreal, I hope you are ok. I can't imagine." Then she followed up with:
"@deansheremet she touched lives, helped raise a good guy. She lived a great life and left her mark. “Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened.” lives are meant to be celebrated. Thank God for those in our lives who help us grow and leave a beautiful mark. She’s singing with the angels AT A TABLE deane! ".
[Via LeAnn's Twitter]
Dean responded with: "Thanks Le, she loved you. Your condolences mean a lot." Yeah… I think that's nice. Dean and LeAnn were together for years and years, and it's nice that they can still chat (over Twitter?) with kindness about a relative's passing. Although I'm sure Dean still has some negative feelings towards LeAnn, she gave him a nice enough settlement that he got to move to New York, study at a culinary school and create a whole new life for himself. I kind of love Dean.
But, with the good comes the bad. Throughout Wednesday and Thursday, LeAnn was also tweeting incessantly about her "little man's" preschool graduation. On Wednesday, she tweeted the photo below of Jake Cibrian with the message "Had to share his luau fabulousness!!!! Mom and he are gonna rock out today. @brandiglanville have Fun!" Yes, she tweeted Brandi. About Brandi's child. And LeAnn included a photo. Because LeAnn can famewhore those kids out ALL DAY LONG.
Brandi never responded – at least not on Twitter. If I was Brandi, I would have just sent it to my lawyer. Some days, I can’t even believe LeAnn has the nerve. Anyway, LeAnn was unstoppable all day yesterday and Wednesday – and you know why? Because LeAnn has put herself in charge of Father's Day AND Eddie's birthday, which is tomorrow. I wonder what LeAnn bought Eddie for his birthday? You know that man loves his toys. He likes having his lady provide for him. So it should be epic.
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 06:28 AM PDT
Earlier this week, Kaiser covered Rihanna “look at my nips” outfit in New York City and concluded that while Rihanna is pretty damn narcissistic, she also needs to take a break from everything. Let’s face it — the girl is in need of a long nap (among other things). Rihanna herself has given a new interview where she discusses how her fluctuating weight — higher last summer and lower just a few months later — and how she ended up in the ER after the Met Gala simply because she didn’t get any sleep the night before. Allegedly, Rihanna’s weight loss is also all down to stress, but unfortunately, she says that her schedule will not let up anytime soon. Riri’s got two more movies scheduled before she starts touring again next year. Also, she claims to hate her new size zero ass:
[From Us Weekly]
If you do a search for Rihanna’s height on Google, the immediate answer that pops up is 5’8″ — which is one inch shorter than my height. I’ve never been a size zero and cannot imagine how little one would have to weigh to be a size zero at this height. In fact, at my very lowest weight, I was a size four and about 115 pounds, and my relatives honestly wanted to commit me to an eating disorder clinic based on appearance alone. The fact of the matter is that, while I obviously wasn’t an international pop star, I was tearing my hair out over graduate school (and other circumstances) and food just didn’t appeal to me. Sooo … I get the notion of stress as a (sometimes unintended) method of weight loss, but I don’t think that’s the case with Rihanna. Earlier this year, she was tweeting photos of her hot personal chef, who presumably whips up low-cal meals for her on the road. I also honestly don’t think that Rihanna is a size zero now. She’s small, yes. But she’s not emaciated.
To recap Rihanna’s butt situation, here it is last August in Barbados.
And here’s Rihanna’s butt in January in Hawaii. There’s a definite difference, but I don’t think she was a size 0 at that point, and I don’t think she is now either.
Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News, Fame/Flynet, Rihanna’s Facebook, and WENN
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 06:28 AM PDT
All week we've been looking at photos of Jennifer Aniston and Justin Theroux looking varying degrees of "loved up" in Paris. Even though the Pity Party Patrol accuses me of all kinds of negative thoughts against She Who Screams At The Ocean, I actually buy that Justin and Jennifer are "loved up". They are the real deal. It's not some sketchy situation where some faux-hipster dude is hired to be her official piece for a certain amount of time. JustJen 4 EVA!!!!! Anyway, I say all of that because In Touch and Star Magazine are both running anti-JustJen pieces this week, claiming that Justin is OVER IT. I covered some parts of the Star story yesterday, but here's In Touch's version:
[From In Touch, print edition]
LOL @ "He misses hanging out with his artist friends and their intellectual conversations." OMG, are you saying that Jennifer Aniston doesn't have intellectual conversations?!? Ask her about her hair, and you shall receive a masters thesis on the subject. Also: this dude counts Terry Richardson as one of his BFFs. I’m just sayin’… let’s not hop on the “Justin is an intellectual” PR campaign.
Now, does Justin look remorseful or like he's full of dread and angst for a hipster life not led? Not really. Justin makes the occasional pissy face, but for the most part he seems fine with being photographed with his lady. And I think the whole Heidi Bivens thing – where he began seeing Jennifer Aniston, THEN split up with Heidi and made her move out of their apartment (even though she probably could have claimed common-law-wife status) – all of that says to me "Justin is moving on to bigger and better things!" In his own mind, that is. Maybe he does feel wistful about Heidi, but then Jennifer buys him another toy or something pretty, and he forgets all about Heidi Whatshername.
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 04:27 AM PDT
Over the past year, I feel like we've been inundated by Lindsay Lohan's crack-boobs. She's been flashing them all over the place – her Playboy photo shoot, on the beach, in front of Terry Richardson's camera, and just last week, on a boat during filming of Liz & Dick. We've all seen her t-ts. Most of us have seen even more than that. But Lindsay still wants us to know that she's a genteel, modest young crackhead child who will not do anything revealing on camera. Because Lindsay Lohan is the cracked-out embodiment of cognitive dissonance. So, remember how Lindsay should praise The Great Cracken In The Sky for allowing her to be cast in yet another Hollywood film? She was cast as the "star" of Bret Easton Ellis's new softcore p0rn/noir, The Canyons. Big news, right? Except Lindsay doesn't know if she wants to do it – because she's so choosy! And because there might be nudity, and she's too precious to show her bits and pieces.
Yes, the "source" is Dina after several hours with a bottle of Jose Cuervo.
If Lindsay wasn't a former child star with huge knockers, she would already be doing p0rn to make money. But perhaps I'm discounting Lindsay and Dina's incessant crack hustle. The budget for The Canyons is teeny-tiny, really dirt-cheap. I think Lindsay is angling for more money, thinking that "all of the big stars" get paid more to do nudity on film. Trust me, she's THAT delusional.
CRACK MONSTER TO PRODUCERS: “SCREEEEEEEEE!!!!”
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 04:16 AM PDT
Agent Bedhead covered a lot of Chris Evans news back when he was promoting Captain America and The Avengers. I remember reading some of her coverage and thinking to myself, "Surely Bedhead is overselling this whole 'Chris Evans is a neurotic bastard' thing." But she wasn't. He is really, really neurotic. It's kind of charming and kind of annoying. Charming because you don't often see good-looking male actors who openly admit to being lost in the dark, bottomless pit of despair, anguish and full-fledged panic, and the fact that Chris talks about it so openly in rather refreshing. Annoying because, like Kristen Stewart, he's an adult and this is his job – stop twitching and learn to deal or go home. Anyway, The Enquirer has an interesting piece about Chris and how friends worry that he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
[From The Enquirer, print edition]
I think the fact that he was (or is) in therapy is a good sign. My guess is that he began to have panic attacks, which can be quite crippling (you feel like you're having a heart attack). Chris has said in the past that he thought his fear/neurosis was brought on by having to promote films he wasn't proud of – like, his body was forcing him to have an existential crisis or something. I don't know. I kind of buy that Chris is having legitimate issues and this isn't his "emo shtick". But I doubt he's on his way to a nervous breakdown.
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 04:16 AM PDT
Last week, during the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations, I carefully noted "Duchess Kate and Prince Harry seem especially close. Just sayin'." Many of you agreed with me, some of you thought I was a horrible monster for even suggesting that Kate and Harry had a friendly, flirtatious and somewhat adorable relationship that may or may not end up in ginger babies. I will say this – I wasn't the only one who noticed. LOTS of people noticed how giggly and flirty Harry and Kate were together. Even Prince William noticed. And In Touch Weekly claims he was royally pissed ("pissed" in the American vernacular, meaning "angry" – not in the British vernacular, meaning "drunk").
[From In Touch Weekly, print edition]
Obvious, the whole "Harry + Waity = Ginger Babies" thing is a lot of fun, and people have very strong opinions about it. I tend to think Kate has come too far, and Waity-ed for so long, she's not going to mess up her gig by boning the Hot Ginger Prince. Maybe she's tempted, or maybe she just likes to "mother" Harry, which is another dynamic I could see playing out.
Now, do you think William would really be angry with Kate (and Harry, to a lesser degree) because of this? Eh. Sometimes I think William is humorless and dull like his father, but I tend to think that he's fine with Kate spending time with Harry. I don't know though… it will be interesting to see if Kate and Harry continue being so flirty and cute together publicly.
Posted: 15 Jun 2012 04:15 AM PDT
January Jones was known for her ice-cold vanilla bitchery, on and off screen for several years. My take: January had so much success with the "Betty Draper" character because that was close to who she is – somewhat superficial, bitchy, vapid. But! My feelings towards January changed when she got knocked up by a mystery man and gave birth to an oddly adorable gingery baby. January really does seem "softer" now – and I'm referencing her personality. Maybe she's not actually nicer (or maybe she was never as big of a bitch as people claimed), but there was a change, both in her and in public perceptions of her. Anyway, Star Magazine claimed that January has reverted to her ice-cold bitchy ways by Mean Girl-ing the new "pretty girl" of Mad Men, Jessica Paré. I'm not sure if I believe it.
[From Star, print edition]
Did January really have a "horrible attitude"? I've never heard that. I don't think she's BFFs with her Mad Men costars, but it's not like everyone was badmouthing her. As for the fat-suit thing – she was still pregnant when they began filming the fifth season, and Fat Betty was Matthew Weiner's solution to the issue. I've read interviews with January where she made it clear that she was simply happy to be included in this season of Mad Men too, so I don't think she was plotting away against Jessica.
Now, let's take a moment and discuss Jessica's new status as "It Girl" – I think it will fade. The Megan character had some great moments throughout the season, but the reviews for Jessica are mixed, to say the least. I think Jessica hopes she'll get a major boost from Mad Men, but I have my doubts as to whether she'll be able to deliver much beyond the show. We'll see.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Cele|bitchy |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|