Amypee’s Weblog

What happened to the good ‘ol days when “sex scandals” actually involved, well, sex?

Angelina Jolie was on the cover of this week’s In Touch Weekly under the blaring headline “Angelina’s Sex Scandal.” The cover also boasts a world exclusive about racy photo shoot that the then aspiring model shot at the ripe age of 16. The photographer, Sean McCall, also filmed the young Jolie as she posed in several bathing suits and leotards.

While Jolie may pout her lips and caress her bare shoulders a bit as she is being photographed, a sex scandal it ain’t, folks. That is what models do! They pose, sometimes seductively. The footage and pictures speak for themselves, and In Touch definitely stretches the definitions of both the word ’sex’ and ’scandal’ here.

What seems to have happened is that some In Touch editors came across some very rare, seemingly provocative images. And they are more interesting now than ever, as the once rebellious vixen has turned into a remarkably scandal-free, classy lady in her older years, and she shows no signs of going back. So that something would come out now to tarnish her wholesomeness heightens the allure of the story. But, alas, the mag deliberately mislabeled what is really just a mundane glimpse of a clueless young girl’s attempt to make it big.

As for Jolie’s response to the unsettling cover story, she could react in several ways. The star could lash out and publicly denounce the magazine, but that just wouldn’t be her style. Rather, it would be most fitting if she handled the unfortunate misrepresentation with grace, as I suspect she will. By simply acknowledging the photo shoot and that she was young when it happened, Jolie will come out the victor. I hope to see her accept responsibility, but I also hope that she does not apologize (and I doubt she will).

With the surplus of adept PR professionals abound, I am amazed that some celebrities still manage to come off as anything but gods and goddesses among us mere, imperfect mortals. I would think it impossible, in fact, for anything but droplets of pure gold to fall from the lips of our apotheosized stars. I just assumed that what comes out of their silly heads passes through some Wonka-like Hollywood PR machine, and all the shrill shrieks, inane drivel, and that which is generally incomprehensible comes out shiny and new. And who are the men and women behind the curtain? The specialists.

We’ve become so spoiled by Hollywood’s finest public relators that we are conditioned to expect a certain level of polish. So when a celebrity’s image, which includes what they have to say for themselves, falls short of perfection, I find it difficult to ignore. Take, for example, a disturbing article about recently reemerged former boy bander JC Chasez from PerezHilton.com. As a judge on MTV’s new hit series “Randy Jackson Presents: America’s Best Dance Crew,” Chasez is in the public eye more now than he has been in several years. And naturally, with that, comes media attention– both unwanted and not. According to People.com, Chasez has been less than thrilled with the recent speculation that he and close pal Chase Crawford are anything but close friends.

But it’s not the unwarranted gay rumors that disturbed me so. Rather, it was JC’s sad attempt at a dignified response. Here’s how he put it:

“The fact of the matter is I’m a straight guy and I’m allowed to have [guy] friends. I don’t care about [people's] assumptions or anything, but when people outright lie, that’s wrong. So I think that part of the rumor is outright stupid.”        

First of all, the guy uses the word “outright” twice within the span of two sentences. That is atrocioius. That is outright atrocious. I also think he meant to say “downright” that second time around. The fact of the matter is that he shouldn’t start off his defense with “the fact of the matter.” It sounds defensive, and we all know what that means. And peppering speech with additional phrases like “or anything” is useless and annoying. 

Despite JC’s good intentions here, his unprofessionalism loses him credibility.  This is an incredibly talented, handsome, and classy guy with years of experience under his belt. But he comes off as anything but that when he fails to go through that ever-important PR machine. A specialist could have easily helped tidy his thoughts because it’s what they are best at. And that would serve not only to enhance JC’s image as he deals with the issues addressed in the articles that continue quoting him, but it would also set the tone for him as he reenters the world of celebrity. 

So, to all the not-so-perfet celebrities out there, I say never let us see you sweat. Please. Instead, have a nice man or lady with a big heart of gold and an even bigger vocabulary (and preferably a communications degree) stand by your side. And if you can’t find one, “I have no comment at this time,” is just fine, thanks.

The Sitch 

It was almost a year ago the recording of what should have remained a very private exchange between father and daughter became the stuff of national headlines. Tapes of the irate message Alec Baldwin left his daughter Ireland on April 11, 2007 somehow fell into the hands of the masterminds over at TMZ, and word of the disturbing rant soon spread.  

In the message, Baldwin refers to his then 11-year-old as a “thoughtless little pig,” just one of the many insults slung at both her and her mother, Kim Basinger, during the two minute outburst.  Since the tape’s public debut, Baldwin  has suggested Basinger as the source of the leakage, an implication Basinger thoroughly denies.  And, while Basinger’s publicist contended that the tape was not sealed by the court, Baldwin’s lawyers beg to differ, claiming to TMZ that, “Whatever happened…was sealed and confidential.  What you’re telling me you’ve got you shouldn’t have.”

The unfortunate incident was the culmination of a long and embittered custody battle over Ireland that began in 2002. According to one friend who spoke out on Baldwin’s behalf, the tirade was a reaction to the frustration caused by six years of Basigner’s attempts to alienate Ireland from her father entirely. After the tape’s release, Baldwin’s custody rights were suspended until a hearing scheduled for May 4.  A spokesperson for Baldwin also released the following statement shortly thereafter:

“In the best interest of the child, Alec Baldwin will do what Ireland’s mother is pathologically incapable of doing… keeping his mouth shut and obeying the court order. The mother and her lawyer leaked this sealed material in violation of a court order. Although Alec acknowledges that he should have used different language in parenting his child, everyone who knows him privately knows what he has been put through for the past six years.”

The Coverage

That Baldwin’s angry words were directed at a child, specifically his child, has not won him much sympathy from the media.  Journalists unabashedly threw around terms like “sickening” and “abusive,” words that undoubtedly shaped the extremely negative perception of Baldwin in the aftermath.  Furthermore, with transcriptions of the rant abound, the most biting of Baldwin’s insults aimed at his daughter is the one that simply won’t die. The phrase “rude, thoughtless little pig” has been burned in our brains through its repeated appearance in various headlines and bylines.  It’s what we remember first from the terrible debacle.  And, worse, Basinger’s camp siezed an opportunity to let Baldwin’s colorful language do it’s own damage.  As her spokesperson so plainly put it, “The voice mail speaks for itself.”  

As for who spoke out during the crisis, the list is as varied as it is predictable.  It seems, though, that the loudest voices among them were Baldwin and Basinger, of course, as well as her publicist and his lawyers.  Not only did his lawyer notify the public of his intentions to obey court orders in the weeks thereafter, but Baldwin himself also released a formal statement of contrition and deep regret.  Basinger’s responses were usually curt and uninformative.  Furthermore, the statement Baldwin’s pal released in his defense also appeared in several articles.  While media attitudes toward Baldwin regarding the incident started out as relentlessly indignant and nearly hostile, he was gradually cut more slack as time passed and he took the proper steps to begin righting his egregious wrong. 

The Bloggers

Identifying a singular voice of the blog-o-sphere would be impossible. Reactions to Baldwin’s plight are as varied as are the bloggers themselves.  One writer wholeheartedly sympathizes with Baldwin’s explosion and goes so far as to encourage other parents to make their children’s tantrums public in an effort to thwart future brattiness.  I think perhaps this was one of the more personally charged accounts I found, though. But it brings me back to my central point–that blogs are just that: deeply personal.  It seemed that many of the blogs I encountered, like this one, were written by parents who chose to more deeply analyze the nuances of the adults relationship that led to the incident. These are likely adults who witnessed the famed relationship in its entirety and its subsequent, very public demise.  Their interest is vested, and as parents themselves, they use their blogs as forums to comment on the vast inner workings of a family in peril, be their opinions harshly critical or compassionate.

A Comparision

Both information sources viewed Baldwin’s behavior as a parent, for the most part, as largely irresponsible and, thus, inexcusable.  But while mainstream media journalists are obligated to remain unbiased in their coverage, bloggers are free to be more explicit about their reactions to the incident. And, again, while the media coverage was largely uniform, there were blogs that deviated from the typical vilification.

On a Personal Note…

I firmly believe that Baldwin reacted in the weeks following the now infamous voice mail with great poise and dignity. He was neither trite nor pathetic, which must have been hard to avoid. His statements in the aftermath subtly chided the public into remembering that he is, in fact, human without ever explicitly asking us to, which makes the effect all the more sincere. Furthermore, he raised the question for all of the fathers who suffer in these custody battles, as he admitted his pain. And forgoing the temptation to justify his actions was crucial in making our newfound sympathy stick.

In a purely visceral sense, he had managed to compel me to turn around and question Basinger’s role in all of this instead. If he could do that without me realizing it, he must have done something right.

There used to be a time when it was taken for granted that entertainers who stood up to say something meant it. This time was the majestic 1960’s, and, all personal feelings of despair that I missed the boat by a good 30 years aside, we are all a little less lucky for being here now instead of there then. Dylan, the Beatles, Joni Mitchell… we know that they sometimes had thoughts because sometimes they wrote songs about them. This is not unlike what a few musicians do today. But when I hear old records of Dylan espousing his political ideals, I don’t feel the same urge to rip my own hair out that this induces.

In my opinion, celebrities today officially forfeit the right to have political beliefs the moment they take on that title (at least as far as the public is concerned). By virtue of being a celebrity, they lose the right to tell me what they think. I do not care, and nor should you. Why, you say? Because we are talking about people who are willing to exploit every aspect of their personal and professional lives in a continuous slew of carefully crafted PR moves to achieve fame and maintain it. There is just no time in a schedule like that for punditry. To put it bluntly, they are puppets and they should sing and dance when I endorse it.

But why do I so blindly accept the integrity of the musicians of yore when I confront every dribble out of the mouths of today’s celebriticans with such skepticism? The reason is simple. Living in the digital age, we require of our entertainers a kind of bare naked exposure that keeps many of them afloat. Us buying into it is what powers the celebri-beast, so I can’t really fault them for allowing it. It serves the greater purpose: fame. What I can do, however, is criticize those who choose to run their dumb mouths about important things, like who should be the next leader of the free world, and expect me to care.

To will.i.am, I say kudos for having a cute little opinion. Really. But please don’t expect me to heed your advice to both “take action and activate [my] passion” and to shake my “lovely lady lumps.” At least not in the same week. And I just heard that song yesterday.

So, according to People, J. Lo finally squeezed ‘em out last night in the wee hours of last night.  How crude, you say, to talk about two precious new lives so unfeelingly? I agree. But, alas,  this is our relationship with the über famous  starlet has become.   While some might think it unfair, let’s examine the facts, please.  Upon invoking my most visceral reactions to memories of J. Lo headlines past, I am first compelled to talk about the fact that “J. Lo” is a moniker for a genuinely talented actress/singer/dancer I once knew as Jennifer Lopez.  The name change turned her into a brand, and the spectacle that is her personal life soon obliterated the faint memory of all her artistry. But this is what she asked for.  

If she didn’t bestow herself with the new name, she certainly embraced it.  The name not only generated a remarkably marketable image that would propel her career into superstardom, but it also must have provided for her somewhat of a safe haven.  For, while J. Lo’s name was strewn about the pages of the gossip rags, Jennifer Lopez probably experienced the same human emotions that we, a distanced and unsympathetic public, experience ourselves.  But J. Lo, a mere plaything, has just become a mommy, and everything has changed. 

In order for J. Lo to reconcile the fate of her career with the fate of her children and her marriage, she will have to strike a very careful PR crusade that, though to the untrained eye will appear as if she is simply living her life, will be carefully controlled.  She will have to walk the fine line between exploiting her children’s much deserved privacy and giving the hungry masses just a little taste, in order to keep J. Lo, the icon, afloat and Jennifer, the mother, sane.     

So, I know that Tom Cruise is the easy target du jour these days, and a more sensitive person might take a moment to consider giving the guy a break.  But, the fact is, the dude is asking for it. And that, dear reader, is exactly what I find most _______. I’m waiting to see if by the end of this post I can appropriately fill in that blank.    Perhaps the word is “amusing,” but it could just as easily be “vexing.”  I’ve considered “sad,” though I’m tempted to say “impressed.”  In any case, musing over Tom’s apparent lunacy has left my universe feeling totally discordant.Am I concerned for the former American darling’s mental well-being? No. We all know that he is off his rocker, but he seems pretty happy about it.  And he’s not really hurting anyone along the way.  In fact, he’s provided many people I know with endless hours of entertainment, most recently with his infamous new video the Gawker vigilantes refuse to take down.  My question is, how does this stuff keep getting out? Why does he continue to put himself in these absurd situations? Certainly if anyone could keep the right people around to keep the lid on a big jar-o’-crazy airtight, it would be Tom Cruise.  Then it hit me.   Is Tom scheming?  It does seem as though his Scientology mania has become his “thing” these days. 

To my utter disappointment, Kirsten Dunst has just joined the ranks of troubled starlets seeking treatment. According to People, Dunst checked into the Cirque Lodge in Utah on Wednesday, joining fellow screen siren Eva Mendes there for some much needed rest. The couch cushions are probably still warm from Lindsay Lohan’s summer 2007 stint.

Dunst was one young actress that I thought had managed to somehow elude falling into this increasingly trite tale. For the most part, she stays out of the headlines, save for an ongoing interest in her love life. But even that has not been such a relatively “hot” topic since her very public relationship with Jake Gyllenhaal ended back in 2004.

Rather, what Kirsten is most notably recognized for is being a distinguished talent in sea of hollow young actress. It is what’s gotten her desirable roles throughout her considerably long acting career and what elicits respect from some notable Hollywood forces, such as the likes of Sofia Coppola. Furthermore, the actress has a pretty beefy film repertoire. With movies like Marie Antoinette, The Virgin Suicides, and the Spiderman trilogy under her belt, her acting chops are indisputable.

However, when a young starlet decides it is time for some self-healing, no amount of talent will keep her safe from the public’s very critical eye. And, accordingly, addressing this public–media and its consumers alike, takes some finesse. What is most crucial now is establishing that Kirsten will come back into acting and not be defined by this moment alone, for that would be an unfortunate distraction from a truly good actress.

What her people have done and what they need to do is continue to be honest and forthright.  Admitting like they did in the People article that the impetus for making this decision likely stemmed from the crushing news of Heath Ledger’s passing is a smart move.  Not only does it ground this somewhat surprising news in reality, it also helps it make very much sense.  In fact, I would guess that many will find her willingness to put her life in check admirable and praiseworthy. Frankly, if Dunst can manage to go Utah and do exactly what she went there to do, something many of its previous guests have so clearly failed at, then this too shall pass.