Quantcast
Channel: Celebrity - The Huffington Post
Viewing all 15269 articles
Browse latest View live

'X-Files' Creator Chris Carter's New Show 'The After': I Want More (But Not Too Much)

0
0
I watch a lot of TV pilots, and here's the biggest question I had after watching "The After," a new Amazon show from "X-Files" creator Chris Carter.

Why didn't a cable or broadcast network make this show? It's certainly better than a lot of the one-hour programs the broadcast networks have debuted in the last year or two, and the first hour of Carter's new project as good as or better than a fair number of cable pilots.

Here's the catch: So far, the first hour is all we get.

The pilot for "The After," which is about 54 minutes long, was made available today by Amazon along with nine other pilots (five are kids' shows, the rest are a mix of comedy and drama). I've also seen another of today's crop, the half-hour show "Transparent," which is from veteran TV writer Jill Soloway. It's very different from "The After" -- it's more low-key, bittersweet and mildly comedic -- but it's also worth a look.

Of all the Amazon pilots I've seen, in this year's crop or in a previous batch, "The After" is the only one that hooked me from the first few minutes. If you're looking for a combination genre piece/thriller that executes the basics reliably well, Carter's new show may be right up your alley.

That said, the show isn't perfect, but the bigger issue is the awkwardness of Amazon's model. I'm not saying new models are inherently bad -- I like it when people dink around with the normal way of doing things in the TV business, but only when that dinking has a purpose. I'm not sure I see the upside to flinging a bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. If a lot of people like "The After," when will more episodes get made? Will it dissipate any potential goodwill by not re-emerging from Amazon's vaults for months -- or longer? Why not just, you know, make a show you believe in?

As I discussed in a TV roundtable today with myself and Dan Fienberg and Alan Sepinwall of Hitfix, though I'm glad it's in the mix, I still don't quite regard Amazon as a major player at the table, in part because it seems unwilling to commit. A big part of the reason that Netflix ordered two seasons of "House of Cards" before anyone had seen any of it is because signing the check for a very pricey David Fincher-Kevin Spacey project gets you noticed. Surely all content creators -- especially one swimming in a sea of physical and virtual content -- want what they've made to get noticed, right?

All Amazon seems to have done thus far is make people who don't work in the entertainment industry realize that making pilots is a dicey, challenging and sometimes dull proposition. This isn't where the showbiz glamour is, it's where you find the stench of flop sweat. But hey, it's not like Amazon is asking me for advice -- though I do have some a bit further down in this post.

As for the content of "The After," I'm hesitant to say much, because a certain amount of the enjoyment of watching the pilot will probably come from not knowing a much about it. I can say that it's an ensemble piece set in the present day, and its characters are put in a lot of danger at various points in the first hour. It also ends on a cliffhanger that I'm not sure about, to be honest, though I'd certainly be willing to watch more. But how much more?

As part of its TV-making process, Amazon has invited people to weigh in on its shows, offering the usual Amazon reviews and ratings. Personally, I'd give "The After" four out of five stars, and I'd also give Amazon this free advice: You might not want to make 22 episodes of this.

I'd be willing to be wrong, but I wonder if "The After" even needs 13 hours to tell its tale. Maybe it'd work best as a movie or two or a miniseries? I don't know where Carter's going with this, and again, perhaps the characters and world he's building could be interesting for a while, but I feel fairly certain that "The After" does not need multiple seasons. (Feel free to leave your thoughts about the pilot in the comment area, which we'll designate a spoiler zone.)

In any event, one of the most welcome developments of the last couple of years has been the re-emergence of the TV movie and miniseries. Aside from prestigious star vehicles on HBO and cheap, usually forgettable stuff on networks like Lifetime and A&E, those categories have been largely moribund for the last decade or two. For a long time, the most profitable TV models depended on making a lot of episodes of a particular show and then selling those shows in traditional syndication. It wasn't the only way to make money, but when it worked, it often made spectacular amounts of money for everyone involved.

The emergence of scads of new platforms and windows has messed with that model a lot, and this is a very good thing. Now that media companies have many different ways to monetize their products (look at me using fancy business words!), they can get off that treadmill. Those who make TV can play around with what kinds of shows they make, they can experiment with how long the shows last, they can be circumspect about which shows become long-term franchises and which ones wrap up when it makes sense to for them to end. New models, networks and outlets are springing up all the time, and TV seasons are shrinking and expanding to embrace the many options before them. I loved "Top of the Lake," for instance, but a second season of that would be a disaster. Maybe that miniseries didn't make a ton of money for everyone involved, but having a buzzworthy sequence of shows -- some of which will return, some of which don't -- will burnish Sundance's brand nicely, and in the long run, will likely make reasonable dough for everyone involved.

Via "The X-Files," Chris Carter helped change television once: As I discussed with various X-Files writer/producers when the show celebrated its 20th anniversary last year, the tale of Mulder and Scully was one of a number of factors ushering in a new era for one-hour dramas.

The success of "The X-Files" helped convince TV executives that a genre piece could be a big pop-culture hit, thus opening the floodgates to "X-Files" homages like "Lost," "Fringe" and dozens of lesser imitators. Perhaps more importantly, the fact that it was character-driven was key to its success. People watched it for the scares, but they the depth of their fandom was determined by how much they cared about the people those scary things were happening to. We've seen so many shows run aground thanks to overwrought concepts and undercooked characters, but when it was good, "The X-Files" wasn't just a freaky procedural or a show with a bewildering mythology (though it too often wandered into the latter mode in its twilight years). In its first few seasons especially, it was a show that asked resonant questions about people who were memorable enough to make the whole adventure worth our time.

That's one of the things that "The After" does better than a lot of network procedurals (and some uninspired cable shows). It wisely focuses on a few characters at first, and even if you don't know much about them (and even if a number of them remain types for the duration), you get invested in at least a few of them as the story gets them into deeper and deeper trouble. Louise Monot's lead character grounds the show in scrappy seriousness, and Aldis Hodge, Sharon Lawrence and an almost unrecognizable Jamie Kennedy do fine work as well. The first hour was a judicious mix of suspense and solid storytelling, and I'd be willing to spend more time with these folks.

So here's my two cents, Amazon: You may have a keeper with "The After." Bring it back, but don't let it wear out its welcome.

Today's TV roundtable with me, as well as Alan Sepinwall and Dan Fienberg from Hitfix, is here and below.


Anna Kendrick & Rebel Wilson Are Coming Back For 'Pitch Perfect 2'

0
0
Let's be honest, no one is surprised by this news: Universal announced on Thursday that Anna Kendrick and Rebel Wilson will reprise their roles in the upcoming sequel to "Pitch Perfect." Elizabeth Banks is set to direct the new film from a script by original writer Kay Cannon.




"Pitch Perfect 2" was announced back in January. When HuffPost Entertainment spoke with Kendrick shortly after the news broke, she played coy about her involvement. "I wish I knew. I wish there was a script," Kendrick said. "But I really do [want to be in it]. I’m like banging down the doors."

For more on "Pitch Perfect 2," head to THR.

Dr. Drew on What All Americans Should Know About Divorce and Family Court

0
0
I caught up with Dr. Drew Pinsky about the new documentary film that he narrates, Divorce Corp, which exposes collusive practices in the U.S. family court system. The film is directed by Joseph Sorge and produced by both Philip Sterberg and James Scurlock. Pinsky is a practicing physician, board-certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, and a member of the staff at Huntington Memorial Hospital. He is also an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the Keck USC School of Medicine. Pinsky starred in the hit reality series Celebrity Rehab With Dr. Drew, which chronicled the struggles for sobriety and the cycles of addictive disorders of a group of celebrities.

Additionally, Pinsky hosts the Dr. Drew Show podcast, which is currently the number-one health podcast on iTunes, and he also co-hosts the Adam and Dr. Drew Show podcast with his former Loveline co-host Adam Carolla. Pinsky is the author of The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism Is Seducing America and Cracked: Life on the Edge in a Rehab Clinic and is currently working on his next book, Recovering Intimacy. In the following interview he talks about why he decided to be part of this documentary, why he believes people should still get married despite the divorce rate in America, how he would change the family court system so that it's fair, and his best advice for you.

2014-02-05-20825_001_0162_OS2.jpg


Dan Schawbel: Why did you originally decide to do the narration for Divorce Corp, and why is this movie relevant today versus 10 years ago?

Dr. Drew Pinsky: I don't have a comparison set of data with 10 years ago, except I look at the way the family court system is serving its own needs, and I can just imagine that this is a monster that will continue to grow. I was first attracted to the producer and director, who is a colleague, surgeon, and who recently become a biotech guy. He had a divorce, had to spend a lot of time in a family court, and he educated me that what he was seeing tipped him off to the probability that there was something wrong. When he started looking deeper, what he found surprised me. My eyes were opened by this project, and the sheer magnitude of the money wasted on divorce, which is on the order of $50 billion a year. Also, the fact that the usual constitutional privileges that you expect from the court of law really don't necessarily apply in a family court, and these aren't even really courts of law per se. For me, this whole experience was eye-opening, and I hope that people who watch it will be discouraged from getting divorces. I think that people jump to that altogether too quickly. This is a system that doesn't really serve anyone's best interest except the system itself.

Schawbel: Why do you think that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce? Is that number going to increase in the next decade? Should fewer people stop getting married altogether?

Pinsky: I believe in the institution, and I think it's necessary to have the stability that healthy childbearing requires. I would be mortified if we don't have more emphasis on helping people establish healthy marriages. The unfortunately reality is that kids that come from divorce are more likely to go through divorce. The wounds that come with divorce are profound and take many decades to wash out in terms of someone's interpersonal conduct. My hope is that realizing that the system that's been put in place of family law courts is not going to make them happy or serve their needs. The one caveat that you'll learn from watching this film is that if you're hellbent on getting a divorce, stay out of the family court and go to mediation. Don't get involved in this, because it will eat up all of your assets just in the name of winning in the court.

Schawbel: How would you change the court and legal systems so that people don't lose their children and life savings after getting a divorce?

Pinsky: I'm not a legislator by nature, but I know the kinds of checks and balances that are in place in the medical system. If these sorts of ethical boundaries were violated in medicine, there would be an outcry. Just for instance, the chumminess between the attorneys that present their cases before the judges and the judges who are receiving campaign contributions from these same attorneys, often socializing with these same attorneys, often paid to put on symposiums with these law firms, and hired by these law firms later after they step down from the bench. This is unbelievable that the culture of this system is so poor from an ethical standpoint. I would put guidelines in. The review agencies that review the judges never take action when these things are brought to the attention of the oversight boards. There's an easy area for some legislation to step in. The other thing is that our usual constitutional privileges don't apply in these courts, like the fact that the judge can override your freedom of speech, he can put you in jail without a trail, he can sell your house to pay your lawyer expenses, and you have no recourse. It's a system that is out of control.

The producer and director that I was describing to you thinks that family courts should be eliminated entirely. I don't know enough to take a radical position like that. It just seems to me that adding some basic ethical guidelines that other professionals are held to would do a lot. The one other thing is the fees that are accumulated regarding child custody. What I learned through working on this film was that they were offensive. Things that in clinical practice that shouldn't be more than a few hundred dollars were thousands and thousands of dollars. It was just the system serving itself. The judges had their favorite reviewers, and there was chumminess there. Doctors can refer to X-ray facilities that they own. You can't have that course in a professional system, and of course this system does.

2014-02-05-FalseChildAbuseClaims.png


Schawbel: One of the major criticisms with the film from current reviewers is that it can't back up some of the claims that it makes. Do you think that's accurate?

Pinsky: I think what's really behind that is that the stories we tell are the most dramatic stories. The criticism that I think is reasonable is that these aren't exemplary stories; these are extreme stories that make for interesting stories for a documentary. We're not saying that this is happening in family court, but we are saying here's how out of line it gets. If I were to sit critically and evaluate our work, I would say that we didn't emphasize solutions enough in the documentary. We're certainly trying to open the conversation. The idea is to have a great conversation, not tell people what to do but to get some conversation going about what's happening.

Schawbel: What are your career advice tips?

Pinsky: Whatever you do, you're going to work very hard if you're going to be successful. If you're going to be doing something that interrupts a lot of your life and sleep, you sure as hell better like it and be passionate about it.

The interesting pattern I see with my peers is that those with a lot of money then turn around and say, "Now what am I going to do? How can I actually make a difference?" Think in terms of contributing and making a difference. I feel very fortunate as a physician to have a skill set where I can always make a difference. Thankfully, my involvement in media has been only with that single intent, to make a healthy difference for people. The other part of that that people miss is to be prepared with skills that make a difference. Don't just go, "What can I do?" Develop a skill that helps you make a difference.

Dan Schawbel is a workplace speaker and the New York Times bestselling author of Promote Yourself. Subscribe to his free monthly newsletter for more career tips.

Clint Eastwood Saves Pebble Beach National Pro-Am Director Steve John From Choking

0
0
PEBBLE BEACH, Calif. (AP) — Clint Eastwood added another starring role at the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am — life saver.

Eastwood attended a volunteer party on the eve of the PGA Tour event when he noticed tournament director Steve John choking on a piece of cheese. The 83-year-old actor quickly performed the Heimlich maneuver Wednesday night at the Monterey Conference Center. "I was drinking water and eating these little appetizers, threw down a piece of cheese and it just didn't work," John said Friday. "I was looking at him and couldn't breathe. He recognized it immediately and saved my life."

Eastwood is a prominent figure at the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am, formerly as an amateur contestant and now as chairman of the Monterey Peninsula Foundation. It has raised over $100 million for charity as the host of the PGA Tour event.

He's often in the CBS tower on the weekend and presents the trophy to the winner, a list that includes Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson and Brandt Snedeker in recent years.

The Hollywood star wasn't expecting an additional duty this week.

"I looked in his eyes and saw that look of panic people have when they see their life passing before their eyes," Eastwood told The Carmel Pine Cone. "It looked bad."

He said it was the first time he had used the Heimlich maneuver.

"I can't believe I'm 202 pounds and he threw me up in the air three times," John said.

The party is one of the biggest nights of the week. Volunteers are entertained by the celebrities such as musician Kenny G and comedian Tom Dreesen.

The 50-year-old John said it was the second time in his life someone had to perform the Heimlich on him.

"It was in Colorado about seven or eight years ago. But it wasn't Clint Eastwood," he said. "I haven't talked to him since that night. It was crazy."

Kanye West Demo Tape 'The Prerequisite' Touts Original Songs From 'College Dropout,' 'Late Registration'

0
0
As the 10-year anniversary of Kanye West's debut album, "College Dropout," quickly approaches (Feb. 10), let's take an even further look back at Ye's originally unreleased 2001 demo tape, "The Prerequisite." In it, listeners will find original cuts from "College Dropout," "Late Registration" and his mixtapes, such as "Jesus Walks" and "All Falls Down" (under the title "Dream Come True").

You can listen to the full tape below and download it for free here.



"The Prerequisite" tracklist:

1. Home (Windy)
2. Jesus Walks
3. Have It Your Way
4. Out Of Your Mind
5. Wow!
6. Need To Know
7. Gotta Pose
8. Never Letting Go (The Stalker Song)
9. Hey Mama
10. Know The Game
11. Family Business
12. Dream Come True
13. Freestyle
14. Last Freestyle
15. Heartbeat

Missy Elliot Discusses Career Hiatus, Promises A Comeback

0
0
It's been a while since we've seen big things from Missy Elliot, but that doesn't mean her entertaining days are over.

Elliot, 42, released her last album, "The Cookbook," in 2005, but she's not worried about losing her spotlight. In an interview with Yahoo's "Yo Show," Elliot gave her career hiatus some context, saying that the time simply hasn't been right to drop another album. She's not willing to sacrifice quality for volume.

"When I create something, it's got to be special," she said. "And it can't just be to throw something out there because I feel like I'm Missy."

Elliot hasn't disappeared entirely since "The Cookbook." She has released several singles over the past few years, including two songs in 2012 that revived her collaboration with Timbaland. She even grabbed a 2014 Grammy nomination for Best R&B Song for "Without Me," Fantasia Barrino's hit track, which features Elliot and Kelly Rowland.

All the same, fans are eagerly awaiting new music from the "Lose Control" singer. Elliot reassured her listeners that she hasn't been afflicted with writer's block; she's just waiting for the right inspiration to help fuel another powerhouse album.

"I'm just trying to make sure that what I give is 100 percent because I know the expectation is high from my fans, and it's high of myself," she said.

Elliot didn't reveal when she would debut any new music of her own, but the rapper did confirm that she is currently working with Faith Evans' on her upcoming album. She promises that her solo career is not yet over, though, saying that she will absolutely put together a comeback album.

"It's coming, I just ain't telling nobody when," she said.

While you wait for her return, take a trip back in time with "Work It."

Supermodel Selfies! Miranda Kerr And Candice Swanepoel Share T&A Photos

0
0
It's New York Fashion Week, everyone! You know what that means. We all get to feel bad about ourselves admire the hottest new styles on the catwalk worn by the hottest women in the world.

Fan Latches Onto Leonardo DiCaprio Below The Belt, And It's Unbelievably Awkward

0
0
Sometimes you just need a hug. But not usually a hug like this.

Leonardo DiCaprio is probably well-accustomed to swarms of adoring fans waiting for him at every turn, but nothing could prepare him for this awkward moment on the red carpet at the Santa Barbara Film Festival. In the video above, DiCaprio is completely caught off guard as a fan named Vitalli Seduik breaks free from the crowd to latch onto DiCaprio's leg. After a few seconds of, um, weird, security breaks up the party and the man is whisked away. The actor appeared to be a good sport, laughing and smiling with an understandable "Did that just happen?" look on his face.

Yup. That just happened, Leo.

Turns out this isn't Seduik's first time getting physical with celebs. Most recently, he tried to take hold of Bradley Cooper at the SAG Awards. And back in May 2012, he tried (and failed) to steal a kiss from Will Smith.

Check out the awkward moment below:

leonardo dicaprio

John Mayer Has Been On Twitter For A Week, And He Already Seems Discouraged

0
0
John Mayer has officially been back on Twitter for a week now. To celebrate his anniversary, we've compiled his best 140–characters–or–less moments thus far.

It's been a hard week on social media for a singer who is quickly learning that his jokes aren't hitting home with his new Twitter following. Apparently one week is all it takes to turn an over–confident Mayer into one who takes credit for his girlfriend Katy Perry's popularity -- joking or not.

Don't believe that Mayer could stray so quickly? Well there is this one time …

When he acted as though everyone was awaiting his arrival.



When he joked about Rebecca Black as if "Friday" came out yesterday.



When he acted as though he was the junior high bully of the Twittersphere.



When he made a self–depricating "Eastbound & Down" joke, and no one seemed to get it.



When he finally came up with a relevant joke … about the wrong medium.



When he coined the most self–indulgent term we've heard in a while.



When he realized that he needs to consider a different strategy.



When he considered another early retirement.



When he tried to take credit for Katy Perry's 50.3 million followers.



Interested in which direction John Mayer's Twitter is heading next? Give him a follow.

Opening Ceremony 2014 Photos: Stunning Images From The Sochi Olympics Opening Ceremony

0
0
The opening ceremony of the 2014 Sochi Olympics had a little bit of everything. There was no shortage of pomp. There was abundant circumstance. There were approximately 3,000 athletes from more than 80 countries. There was even an apparent lighting malfunction involving the iconic interlocking Olympic rings.

From the traditional "Parade of Nations" and the complex dance and music program dreamed up by the creative director Konstantin Ernst, to the lighting of the Olympic cauldron by Russian sports icons Vladislav Tretiak and Irina Rodnina, here are the most captivating images from the opening ceremony:


Who Is t.A.T.u.? A Look Back At The 'All The Things She Said' Duo's 15 Minutes Of Fame

0
0
If you remember anything about t.A.T.u., it's probably their controversial video for the 2003 song "All the Things She Said." That's the one where the Russian duo -- made up of Lena Katina and Julia Volkova, who were 19 and 18 at the time, respectively -- kissed and caressed each other in the rain while wearing schoolgirl outfits in prison.

If you know anything else about the band, it might be that they performed at Friday's opening ceremony of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. Anyone who considers the duo a one-hit wonder probably raised an eyebrow at the announcement, even if t.A.T.u.'s ties to Sochi are evident in their Russian heritage. What's even more perplexing is why the Olympics, staged in a country with anti-gay laws that have gained increasing notoriety over the past several months, would select a duo defined by their promotion of homosexuality. Katina and Volkova revealed in a 2003 documentary that they aren't lesbians themselves, but they maintained that their efforts intended to champion open-minded sexuality.

Now, 11 years after they first made a splash across genres, here's what else you need to know about the duo.

Their debut English-language album, "200 km/h in the Wrong Lane," arrived in 2002 and went on to achieve multi-platinum status. Its lead single, "All the Things She Said," peaked at No. 20 on the Billboard Hot 100. The song made t.A.T.u de facto gay icons, and it remains a supposed lesbian anthem, despite having been labeled a "gimmick" by some critics. Even though they're straight, Katina commended their effort to represent young girls who don't see lesbians portrayed in mainstream culture. “I think we did a great job on that, because we received so many thank-you letters, especially if you are a teenager when everything is over the top, and then you understand you are different and society doesn’t support you, it’s really tough, a lot of people commit suicide,” she told The Daily Beast last year when the song turned 10. “I was so surprised by those letters.”



The duo maintained buzz by making waves with countless performances in which they held hands and fondled each other. Katina and Volkova infuriated "Tonight Show" executives when they kissed during a performance of "All the Things She Said" after promising to remain chaste. The show cut away to a guitarist for the duration of the 25-second liplock.



Their follow-up song, "Never Gonna Get Us," hit the Top 10 in several countries and No. 1 on the U.S. Hot Dance Club Play chart. They performed it and "All the Things She Said" on the 2003 MTV Movie Awards.



The duo split with their producer and manager, Ivan Shapovalov, in early 2004, claiming he was only concerned with advancing their scandals. Rumors t.A.T.u. had split up circulated, but the fallout with Shapovalov was depicted on the Russian reality series "t.A.T.u. v Podnebesnaya." Regardless, Volkova then became pregnant and the group was unable to record their next album as promptly as anticipated.

tatu 2003

By the time they bounced back with the 2005 album "Dangerous and Moving," their buzz had dwindled and the duo failed to garner the same recognition seen in their debut project. "The hooks they're handed this second time around are decidedly duller, and the limitations of their vocal abilities are exaggerated, not concealed, by the bluntly simplistic tunes," Rolling Stone's Barry Walters wrote. The lead single, "All About Us," didn't chart on the U.S. Hot 100 but did crack No. 13 on the U.S. Hot Dance Club Songs rankings. The corresponding music video portrayed an attempted rape and was released with a censored version as well.



Their next two songs from the album -- "Gomenasai" and "Friend or Foe" -- also failed to chart in the U.S. The duo didn't want "Gomenasai" to be a single at all, but Interscope Records released it anyway. They parted ways with the label thereafter.





In 2009, t.A.T.u. returned with "Waste Management," an album that generated virtually no buzz in the U.S. It spawned three singles, each of which met similar fate.







Tensions rose between the two women in 2010 when Katina embarked on a solo career but continued to perform t.A.T.u.'s hits at concerts. Volkova responded by saying, "[Lena] has the right to [sing t.A.T.u. songs], but it's so stupid, absolutely stupid. If you do a solo career, it means that you do your own work. Her stuff that she makes, I think, is silly, and very soon her career will wither away and disappear." A year later, Katina gave a radio interview in which she said the two are "not planning to reform t.A.T.u., certainly not in the near future."

tatu 2009

In March 2011, the group's management announced t.A.T.u. was officially over. Katina and Volkova proceeded to release solo material. They reunited in December 2012 on the Romanian version of "The Voice" for their first performance together in three years. When asked whether they keep in touch, Katina said, "Only when we see each other. We have very different lives in different countries now. We are not in a fight, though."



The duo has reunited a few times since, without ever officially reteaming. They donned the schoolgirl outfits they once longed to shed this past September for a Japanese Snickers commercial.



t.A.T.u. performed "Not Gonna Get Us" during the opening ceremony. Coverage airs on Friday night on NBC. Until then, enjoy this 2003 E! News interview in which they discuss the reaction to the "All the Things She Said" contention.

Lindsey Vonn Talks Divorce, Olympic Setbacks And Dating Tiger Woods

0
0
It's been a tumultuous last few years for Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn, both on the slopes and in her personal life.

In January 2013, the star athlete's divorce from husband and former coach, Thomas Vonn, was finalized. Then just last month, Vonn was forced to pull out of contention for the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, after re-injuring her right knee in December.

That's enough to get anyone down, but in the February issue of "Self" magazine, the 29-year-old gold medalist says she's open to whatever challenges life throws at her.

"What's the point in being afraid? I've crashed a million times," she tells the magazine. "If you go around being afraid, you're never going to enjoy life. You have only one chance, so you've got to have fun."

She added: "Getting divorced was the scariest thing I've ever done. I'd been dating him since I was 18, and I realized I wasn't happy anymore. I wasn't sure if I was strong enough to be on my own, but I found out I am. Now I'm in charge of my whole life. It's terrifying -- and exciting. It gave me a lot more self-confidence and a greater sense of self-worth."

Vonn credits boyfriend, golfer Tiger Woods, with helping her deal with her injuries and painful rehab the last few months.

"He's helped me stay patient through rehab," she said. "He helped me take it one day at a time. I'd say, 'Why can't I do this? I want to!' And he'd say, 'You'll get your chance. It will come.' We're good for each other. I don't know what he's learned from me, to be honest. But we push each other and help each other when we're down."

Vonn, who announced her relationship with Woods back in March 2013, has said she hopes to make a full recovery in time for next year's World Championship in Vail, Colorado. In the meantime, she'll serve as Olympic correspondent for NBC during this year's games.

Keep in touch! Check out HuffPost Divorce on Facebook and Twitter.

Actors Make More Money Than You'd Expect On Low-Rated Films

0
0
Ever walked out of a movie theater and said, "I can't believe I just paid for that"? Of course you have. But you can't get a refund for not liking a film, and so you go on your way, griping about how you've spent your money on something so mediocre.

One might assume that if a film is "bad," its cast would suffer; poor pay for poor reviews, right?

Wrong. In fact, you wouldn't believe how much money actors have earned from films that made the critics grumble. Check out the salaries that actors have pulled in from low-rated films:

Chris Crocker Discusses Gender Identity In Revealing Interview

0
0
Chris Crocker rose to fame in 2007 with his infamous "Leave Britney Alone" YouTube video -- and he's come a long way over the past seven years.

Having recently been featured in Todrick Hall's viral "Mean Boyz" parody, the Internet celebrity sat down with Queerty this week to open up about his career and personal life.

In the interview, Crocker tells Queerty that he is seriously considering transitioning and living as a woman.
Some people get a haircut. I change genders or gender aesthetics. I don’t know that I’ll ever be content just one way or another. But I’m on the journey to figuring that out. It keeps coming up: do I want to transition? Because I’m getting older. I’m 26, and you start hardening in the face and everything else. So it’s hard, because I know I would have no problem completely transitioning for myself… But I come from a Pentecostal family, so you know. And it would change our [his and Justin's] relationship a lot. He says he would still stay with me, but I know he wouldn’t be as attracted to me. So I don’t know..


He also noted, "I know I would be 100 percent happy living as a girl."

Head here to read the whole interview on Queerty.

This isn't the first time Crocker has publicly discussed gender identity within the context of an interview. In a 2012 interview with HuffPost Gay Voices, Crocker opened up about having previously spent three years of his life living as a woman and the way he was questioned and scrutinized when he decided to live as a man again. "People can't understand that someone can have both sides of themselves and switch back and forth," Crocker told HuffPost. Head here to read the interview in full.

20 Celebrity Couples That Prove Marriage In Hollywood Can Actually Last

0
0
It's easy to retreat to skepticism when it comes to Hollywood love. After all, relationships start and end in Tinseltown faster than you can say "Action!" But the following couples and their everlasting commitment to each other prove that not all is lost:


Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen on Being Besties and Waiting for Godot

0
0
2014-02-07-McKellenStewartNOGO104r.jpg


Within the theatre, they are master British thespians, knighted for their contributions to the craft. Within fan culture, they have geek god status -- one as a Starfleet captain, the other as a fierce wizard and friend to Hobbits, both as powerful mutant leaders. In social media, they are something of a viral Internet phenomenon as they adventure throughout New York City and send holiday greetings to fans.

But really, Sir Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen are perhaps most beloved for being best friends and collaborators who have used of the combined might mentioned above to create one of the more buzzed about and compelling theater experiences around. Even before beginning previews last October, Waiting for Godot and No Man's Land -- the duo's two plays in repertory at Manhattan's Cort Theatre, directed by Sean Mathias and also starring Billy Crudup and Shuler Hensley -- the two big actors in the Big Apple were causing a stir. Not only were they reteaming on stage following their Godot performances in London in 2009 and 2010, but they seemed to be having so much fun doing it. Here was Stewart and McKellen eating hot dogs on Coney Island; there they were posing with Elmo in Times Square -- or sitting on Santa's lap or handing out hot chocolate on Super Bowl Sunday. McKellen even performed the ceremony for Stewart's wedding last September.

Meanwhile, fans of the classically trained Shakespearean actors were coalescing with the pop culture fans of the men from Star Trek: The Next Generation, Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings movies and the X-Men franchise (in which they appeared together four times, including The Wolverine, and are about to do it again with this summer's Days of Future Past installment). And not shockingly, when the two plays in rep actually opened, it was as masterful as both sets of fans hoped.

Now, with less than two months left in the run, before the shows closes March 30, the following is a conversation with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen about their work, and a friendship that extends to the characters they're playing.

Aaron Sagers: Why choose these two plays to perform together, especially since you've both already done Godot?

Ian McKellen: When we had our last night in London -- we'd done a Godot tour of the UK, to quite large theaters, and had been astonished at the audience's reaction. People outside London thought Waiting for Godot was a gas. When I'd seen the tour of the original production, in the provinces in London where I lived in Manchester, I remember there were about 10 people in the audience. That was until intermission, then there were five. It baffled people. Then we toured it, packed houses, and came to London. That was the same reaction. When it was over that night, I went into the dressing room and cried. I was sobbing and Sean put his arm around me and said, "what's the matter?" and I said, "I despair if ever I'll enjoy myself as much again." So we went on doing it without Patrick. We did a tour of Australia and New Zealand and South Africa. Even then, after 340 performances, I didn't think I'd had enough of it. So I was keen to do it again and the possibility of doing it in New York appealed to Patrick and me. In the meantime, he'd been lobbying the director to say, "Why couldn't we do No Man's Land?" a play I'd never much cared for. I'd seen it a number of times, including seeing Harold Pinter play Patrick's part...

Patrick Stewart: That's right, and I thought I had had my experience with Waiting For Godot, he wanted more of it. But it was Sean Mathias, our director, who said, "Well, isn't there something here?" I had been working on Ian for months about No Man's Land. I'd say, Ian are we ready yet? "No, no, I'm not ready yet." So Sean very cleverly arranged to do a read through, brought in two other actors and one afternoon we sat around a dressing room and read the play. It was a beautiful thing to watch Ian getting why we knew he was perfect casting for this role. The deal was done, and after that we had to think about where we'd do it. Well, No Man's Land had recently been done in London and we always wanted to bring Godot to New York.

2014-02-07-Godot047r.jpg


Aaron Sagers: People seem to love your friendship and seeing you work together again, but isn't this is a relatively new thing?

Ian McKellen: Well we haven't worked together very much. We've only done Waiting for Godot. Our careers have not really crossed. Our careers have run in parallel. We've played the same parts. If one of us is playing Macbeth, what's the other one going to play? There are not that many plays in which two actors of similar age and standing ... these are two of them. We're not that old friends, actually. We've known of each other and bumped into each other, and I was one of the people that Patrick asked for advice as to whether he should take up a long-term contract for Star Trek. I said, "Absolutely not!" That wasn't hardly the mark of a friend. Then I didn't sort of see him for 17 years. So our coming together is a relatively recent thing. But we fell into each other's arms because of our similarities in our career, and because of our age and because we like the same sort of things. Despite the fact that he's from Yorkshire and I'm from Lancashire! That's the big difference between us. If Patrick does something other people think is a bit strange, I just say he's Yorkshire!

Patrick Stewart: We became friends on X-Men. Ian loves talking about it. There are so many parallels in our careers and our lives. We're both Northerners; He's a Lancastrian and I'm a Yorkist, and he went to a great University but I left school when I was 15. But he was successful and became a star immediately. I saw him and I was amazed, overwhelmed by the quality of his work. I started our relationship as a fan. He wouldn't know who I was back then. Then we came into the RSC (Royal Shakespeare Company) together. We didn't know one another well but we were both pursuing the same sort of career, but Bryan Singer cast us in the first X-Men movie and we had adjoining luxury trailers. Of course, it was movie making so we spent more time sitting in our trailers than on the set. We got to know one another and that's when the bond began, which was cemented by 22 weeks of touring in England and being in the West End doing Waiting for Godot. And sharing a dressing room for 22 weeks!

Aaron Sagers: Do you think you've brought geek culture to Broadway because of fans of X-Men or Lord of the Rings who may not have experienced much theater?

Ian McKellen: Well that would be lovely, wouldn't it? It's what you always hope. It must happen to a certain extent -- I know it does because I hear from them ... But yes, it would be wonderful to feel you had an army of supporters who wanted to see you in whatever you were doing. There's probably enough of them to fill a theater for a few weeks.

Patrick Stewart: For the last 25 years, I've been experiencing that. When I brought my solo version of A Christmas Carol to New York, which I've done here four times, the very first time I brought it, we could not get anyone to produce it. People said, "Are you crazy? One man in a suit, four pieces of furniture? Who is going to come and see that?" Then one producer, who had never produced in his life, said I'll do it. He put up $400 thousand and the first week of that performance was almost exclusively launched through the fan clubs. We bombarded the fan clubs with news that I was doing this on Broadway, and they came. Some of them came wearing my uniform, but they launched it. They gave me a great week and then the critics came and fortunately they liked it. We have seen, again and again, through correspondence and chance encounters on the street, people say they've never had an interest in Shakespeare, in Ibsen, never thought about this until they saw Captain Picard and Professor Xavier! I like to think sometimes people like Ian and myself -- and Orlando Bloom, Daniel Craig, Rachel Weisz -- that we are, in a small way, responsible for creating a new audience. I don't care why people come to see it; I don't care if they come to see Captain Picard. Just let them come because we know, once we've got them in their seats, we can change their perception of what live theater can be, which is incredibly entertaining.

Aaron Sagers: How are those geek audiences different from theater audiences?

Ian McKellen: I've met some of these geeks. I was at comic con this year, and a couple of other years too. There's not an anorak in sight. [Anorak is Brit slang for obsessive fans of fringe subjects.] Occasionally people are dressed up in costumes, it's a bit fun, but often you know, when you get to talk to them, you say, "what do you do?" And they say, "Oh, I'm a teacher teaching literature and I'm working on Tolkien and approve of the movies." They're just the sort of people who would probably come and see these two plays. There may be beyond that, a much wider audience of people who don't have theater available to them, and perhaps can't afford what it costs on Broadway -- which is why we've got some cheap seats in the front row and other seats in the house as well.

Patrick Stewart: They're pretty much separate communities, except you'd be surprised where some of those geek audiences are. I had, not one, but two different chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ask if they could sit in the captain's chair. Ask! I'm not even a citizen of the United States! They could have just brushed me aside and sat down. The Secretary of State [Madeleine Albright] had outside her office two photographs: One with her and the Clinton cabinet, and another one with the entire cast of Star Trek. And her assistant said, which do you think is the one she always points out to visitors? This is brilliant. I remember the day our hairdresser on the show said, "You're not going to believe this but I was talking to the woman who does Frank Sinatra's wife's hair and she told me Frank never misses an episode."

Aaron Sagers: Have you ever wanted to keep your careers in the world of theater versus popular culture separate?

Ian McKellen: Oh no, not at all! I like going to see movies like Lord of the Rings. I like going to see Shakespeare and the classics. There is no division in me. I've got catholic tastes. I love musicals, I love the ballet, opera, the circus. It's all performance to me.

Patrick Stewart: Absolutely there have times when I have made a deliberate, conscious choice to focus on one compartment of my career -- but never so as to deny the existence of the other because every part of my career has benefited from the other parts. All I ever wanted to be was a stage actor; I had no ambitions in any other directions except to be on stage with the best possible company I could find in the best possible play. No ambitions for television; I didn't own a television set until I was 25. So it was not something that drew me, and movies were as remote for me -- I went to see them and loved them -- but the idea of being in movies was a fantastic dream. I never actively looked for the commercial populist work I've done on film and television. It found me and I'm very, very happy it did.

Aaron Sagers: What are these plays about, in your opinion?

Ian McKellen: It's a play very much about old age. We both respond to it enormously. He comes on and he's been unable to pee. He's got something wrong with his prostate. I come on and I can't get my shoes off because my feet are swelling and I can't remember where I was last night. These are predicaments! I've got prostate cancer and, thank god my memory's not gone, but I know what it's like to have aches and pains. So Godot is rooted in the reality of life for old people. And No Man's Land, the same. These are old guys trying to cope with their memories and their position in the present, and wondering if there's ever going to be much of a future. So that doesn't mean to say only old people will enjoy them but if you want to know what it's like to get old, these are two pretty good plays.

Patrick Stewart: My interpretation, this is mine, I don't speak for my colleagues at all: It is about how we go on living, how we get from day-to-day, and what is required from an individual, sometimes under difficult conditions, to stay alive. It's about surviving. That's what [Godot] means to me.

'The X Factor' Canceled After 3 Seasons, Fox Announces

0
0

LOS ANGELES (AP) — "The X Factor" is ending after three seasons.


Fox and the show's production companies announced Friday that the U.S. edition of the singing competition won't be coming back this fall.


"X Factor" head judge and creator-executive producer Simon Cowell, who served as a judge on Fox's "American Idol" for nine seasons, will instead return to the U.K. version of "X Factor" later this year.


"I've had a fantastic time over the last 12 years, both on 'The X Factor' and 'American Idol,' " Cowell said in a statement. "And apart from being lucky enough to find some amazing talent on the shows, I have always had an incredible welcome from the American public — most of the time!"


The acerbic judge initially predicted that "X Factor" would be a major hit before its 2011 debut, but the show never garnered stellar ratings, which continued to dip in last year's third season. "X Factor" also failed to produce a winner as successful as past "Idol" champions.


The show's hosts and judging panel was revamped each season with Paul Abdul, Antonio "L.A." Reid, Britney Spears, Demi Lovato and Kelly Rowland among those joining Cowell on the panel.


___


Online:


http://www.fox.com

Woody Allen Speaks Out On Sexual Abuse Allegations

0
0
Last Sunday, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about Dylan Farrow, the adopted daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. Mr. Allen has written the following response to the column and Dylan’s account.

The Stars On This Week's Best Dressed List Have Some Serious Skills

0
0
Between swanky Super Bowl festivities and AmfAR's fancy prelude to New York Fashion Week, there were plenty of stellar style moments to choose from for this week's best-dressed list.

Lily Aldridge was a vision in winter white and Jessica Alba showed us how to rock a sweatshirt on the red carpet. But it was Beyoncé who claimed the top spot by mesmerizing us with her killer curves in a dazzling gown. She can seriously do no wrong!

Here's a look at all our picks for best-dressed. What do you think?

Lily Aldridge in Rosie Assoulin

best dressed list
One word: Goddess! The dramatic neckline and sleeves on this edgy ivory ensemble make it a certified showstopper.

Beyoncé in Roberto Cavalli

best dressed list
There are very few celebs that could rock this peek-a-boo creation and Beyoncé is definitely one of them. She effortlessly shows off her fabulous physique while looking classy -- not trashy.

Jessica Alba

best dressed list
It's not easy pulling off a sweatshirt on the red carpet, but Jessica handled it like a champ. Teaming the casual staple with a leather pencil skirt, while jazzing it up with eye-catching accessories make for a winning combination.

Karolina Kurkova in Armani

best dressed list
It doesn't take much for this supermodel to look amazing, but we've got to give credit where credit is due. The asymmetrical cut-out on this gown and high-slit show just the right amount of skin, while her simple hair and makeup are the perfect compliment to the overall look.

Chanel Iman in Calvin Klein Collection

best dressed list
Ms. Iman proves yet again that less is more. Enough said.

More celebs who made the best-dressed list:



Want more? Be sure to check out HuffPost Style on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest and Instagram at @HuffPostStyle.

A Close Reading Of Woody Allen's New York Times Op-Ed

0
0
On Friday night (Feb. 7), alongside the fanfare of the Olympics opening ceremony, the New York Times published Woody Allen's response to Dylan Farrow's open letter alleging he had sexually abused her at the age of seven. It should be noted that, while Dylan's letter was deemed unfit for the Times' site (it was published on Nicholas Kristof's blog instead), editors found it acceptable to provide Allen with a forum for his defense. While many elements of Allen's piece have been deemed false, there are also a number of rhetorical choices Allen makes that deserve closer analysis.

The title alone implies a sense of liberation and self-advocacy, which deliberately infers that Allen has previously been unable to discuss his viewpoints on the matter (despite the fact that he has denied request for comment, while both his lawyer and publicist argued on his behalf).

woody

Allen's defense is predominantly built upon insisting Mia Farrow is a bad person, rather than disproving Dylan's sexual abuse allegations or proving that Mia Farrow coached Dylan into believing said allegations. Instead, he focuses solely on crafting Mia as a monster, using details of the case but mostly relying on Mia's affair with Sinatra (which seems irrelevant in this context). From a logical standpoint, all that this can plausibly aspire to prove is that Mia Farrow is not a good person (though it fails to effectively do even that).

"The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn't even hire a lawyer to defend myself."

"I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here."

"Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that."


He immediately sets out to establish temporal distance from Dylan's accusations, diminishing relevancy by repeatedly establishing that it occurred "twenty-one years ago."

"TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn't give it a second thought."

"NOW it's 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false."

"Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement."

"Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago?"


He dismisses Dylan, flattering her as a "lovely woman" before taking aim at Mia's character and failing to encounter Dylan as an active agent, literally calling her a "pawn." At no point does he treat Dylan as an adult with her right to a fully formed understanding what happened, going so far as to question whether Mia wrote the letter for her in the first place.

"One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother's shabby agenda?"


He discredits Dylan's very right to address her allegations and asserts that if she needed to do so, once was more than enough, a move which undermines his faux sympathy for her as the victim of Mia's "malicious" nature.

"Not that I doubt Dylan hasn't come to believe she's been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root?"

"After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair."


Instead, he uses a discourse of innocence to cast himself in the place of the victim, displacing Dylan's real estate as the harmed party, by painting himself as one who was helplessly unaware of the forces systemically working against him even in matters unrelated to this specific case.

"I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed."

"[Judge] Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi."

"This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt."

"Even if he [Ronan] is not Frank's, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support."


He cleverly informs us of our perception of events, rather than letting the reader form such a position independently, by explaining things as "transparent" and "obvious" without much reason for establishing how this was so. This technique is systematically employed, almost as if to establish credibility through repetition. For example, he uses the phrase "of course" four times throughout the piece, inserting a statement of certainty for which he provides absolutely no foundation.

"I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn't molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was."

"Of course, I did not molest Dylan."

"I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide."


He leans heavily on Moses Farrow in order to prove that he did not molest Dylan, despite the fact that Moses was legally a child at the time of the incident and can only feasibly testify to his mother's behavior (not what happened in the attic).

"Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: 'My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.' Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. 'Of course Woody did not molest my sister,' he said."

"Here I quote Moses Farrow again: 'Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.'"


He evasively includes his relationship with Soon-Yi as a reason that he was further victimized, dismissively addressing the severely taboo nature of their relationship) by referring to her legal age ("my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia's adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s") and further victimizing himself by implying a helplessness in his falling for Soon-Yi and implying his fall out with Mia was the only thing morally incorrect about his initial relationship with her.

"[I] felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge."


In the single instance where he genuinely addresses the factuality of the sexual abuse (and not the events surrounding it), his only defense is essentially that it would not have suited him at the time, although does not take on the burden of explaining why this is so, beyond the fact that he was in relationship with Soon-Yi.

"When I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I'd go on to marry -- that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive."


No one can ever truly know what happened in the attic besides Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen, but with this unabashedly arrogant defense against her claims, Allen wholly fails to treat his daughter as more than a mere pawn used to further a plot against him. He defiantly refuses to argue logically against her allegations in favor of unfounded personal attacks that ultimately come off as petty and no less vitriolic than he endeavors to paint Mia Farrow. He positions Mia as the aggressor, in claiming she is responsible for coaching Dylan into believing her experience was a reality, but then further robs Dylan's right to experience anguish over the incident (real or coerced), by questioning whether her speaking out was ever "really a necessity" in the first place. At best, Woody Allen is an arrogantly unsympathetic yet innocent man. At worst, he is a monster, who sexually abused his daughter and feels he only needs to respond by painting her mother as the cause of two decade's pain.
Viewing all 15269 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images