Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

Oh No They Didn't! - LiveJournal.com

older | 1 | .... | 570 | 571 | (Page 572) | 573 | 574 | .... | 4450 | newer

    0 0

    Miami Beach cops claim Justin Bieber was drag racing at the time of his arrest Thurday ... but the facts seem to show the allegation is MADE UP ... because we've learned they were actually UNDERTHE SPEED LIMIT in the middle of the so-called drag race.

    0124-justin-bieber-driving-3

    According to the police report ... cops spotted Justin and his buddy Khalil drag racing at around 4 AM.

    The police report says ... an officer observed the 2 vehicles reaching speeds between 55 and 60 MPH.

    Now the problems. 

    Cops say they noticed the "drag race" on the 2600 block of Pine Tree Drive.  Cops were traveling in the opposite direction so they made a U turn and pursued the cars for 15 blocks.

    Mind you ... Justin was driving one of the fastest race cars around -- a Lamborghini Gallardo LP550-2 Spyder.  Khalil was driving a Ferrari 16M.  Cops claim 2 SUVs in Justin's entourage actually blocked off traffic to give the 2 a clear path. 

    So how could a 15-block drag race in those cars reach speeds of ONLY 60 MPH?

    Fact is ... THEY DIDN'T REACH 60IN FACT THEY DIDN'T REACH 50THEY DIDN'T EVEN
    REACH 40.


    TMZ has learned ... the place where Justin and Khalil rented the cars attached a GPS device that also tracks speed. 

    The GPS clocked both cars at 27 MPH at the 3500 block of Pine Tree Drive ... smack in the middle of the so-called "drag race."

    There's only one time they ever broke 50 MPH and that was long before the pursuit started.  When Justin and Khalil left the club, one car was briefly clocked at 52 MPH and the other 47 MPH. Both drivers slowed down pretty quick and 5 blocks before cops noticed them they were going 34 MPH in a 30 MPH zone.   Blocks later, they were steady at 27 MPH.

    So it seems cops goosed the facts to justify the stop.

    And that's not the only problem with the police report.  TMZ broke the story ... Justin's blood alcohol level was .014 -- a barely measurable amount.  Yet cops claim Justin reeked of alcohol both at the scene and at the police department.


    0124-justin-bieber-report-3

    SOURCE

    cut_off_florida

    0 0



    Charlamagne recalled a very interesting story from a night he spent partying with Rihanna in the hood. He explained how he was drunk in Beverly Hills and tweeted Rihanna asking her to join the fun. The singer obliged, and wound up taking him and his crew to a hood spot rather than some fancy club.

    Charlamagne remembers her being the "coolest chick" because she was dressed casual in jeans, a t-shirt and a hat, and all they did was pop bottles and light up all night. He even recalls running into Beanie Sigel at the hood spot.

    Charlamagne feels as though Rihanna "is the realest in the game since Tupac." Check out the interesting story below.




    YOU BETTER STAN, SIS!

    Source

    0 0


    Shakira fans can get a taste of the partnership with Target’s broadcast commercial (look out for the signature red Target mic!) to kick off exclusive album pre-orders, which debuts during the 56th Annual Grammy Awards® on CBS on Sun., Jan. 26.
    source

    Shaki is gonna slay in this era!!

    0 0



    Veteran British rocker Phil Collins said in comments aired Friday that he has started collaborating with compatriot Adele, reported to be working on a follow-up to her hit 2011 album "21."

    The former "Genesis" frontman, who effectively retired from music a few years ago, gave no more details of his cooperation with the multiple Grammy-winning British songstress.

    "I've just started to work with Adele," he told a TV interviewer for Inside South Florida, adding: "She contacted me to write together."

    Collins, 62, said he had not known much about 25-year-old London-born Adele, who had huge hits with songs including "Someone Like You" and "Rolling in the Deep."

    "I wasn't actually too aware. I live in a cave," he joked. "But she's achieved an incredible amount. I really love her voice. I love some of that stuff she's done, too," he added.

    Adele had a baby following the worldwide success of her second album, "21," released in February 2011. She won another Grammy last year for the 007 theme tune "Skyfall," and is working on a new album, according to Rolling Stone.

    Some media reports have suggested it could be released in mid 2014.

    Last month, "21" became the first album to pass three million digital sales in the United States, according to leading online tracking company Nielsen. It continues to enjoy robust sales and so far has sold 26 million copies worldwide.

    Collins, the drummer-turned-frontman of Genesis who went on to sell more than 100 million albums as a solo artist, announced in March 2011 that he was calling it a day to concentrate on being a full-time father to two young sons.

    His comments came two days before the 56th annual Grammy Awards show this weekend in Los Angeles.

    src


    0 0

    Skärmavbild 2014-01-25 kl. 20.06.15

    Pop star Justin Bieber has reportedly become increasingly dependent on steroids which has caused his recent bizarre behaviour.

    According to The Sun the 19-year-old has been using Clenbuterol, a diet drug which is most commonly used on the horses.


    The claims come after the singer emerged from his Miami rental on Friday evening following his DUI arrest.

    The paper reports that Justin, who is currently on bail, started using the drug after he discovered weight lifters use it to gain extra muscle definition.

    A source said: ‘As well as drinking and smoking weed, Justin’s been taking steroids to give himself a six pack.



    ‘His physique had gone from boy-like to muscled in a very short time and his mood have become wildly erratic.’

    The singer appeared in high spirits when he left his Miami mansion to hundreds of waiting fans on Friday evening.

    His appearance followed a tweet just a few hours earlier in which Justin finally addressed his fans telling them to stay strong as criticism is leveled at their support following the incident - that involved drugs, alcohol and drag racing.

    The young star has however, refused to comply with his management team that has urged him to check into rehab.

    SOURCE

    0 0



    The actor felt it was time for a change, according to sources

    “The Hunger Games” star Josh Hutcherson has parted ways with ICM Partners and his longtime agent Carter Cohn, TheWrap has learned.

    Hutcherson exited the agency amicably this week and plans to take meetings next month with CAA, WME and UTA, an individual familiar with the situation told TheWrap. Hutcherson and Cohn had a “great working relationship” according to sources, who added that the actor simply felt “it was time for a change.”

    Hutcherson is set to reprise his role as Peeta Mellark in Lionsgate’s two-part franchise finale “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay,” though his lucrative deals for those sequels were made by ICM Partners.

    The agency also negotiated a starring role for the young actor in the indie “Paradise Lost,” which co-stars Benicio del Toro as drug kingpin Pablo Escobar.

    “The Hunger Games” isn’t Hutchson’s only franchise, as he also stars alongside Dwayne Johnson in New Line’s “Journey” movies.

    Hutcherson was a child actor whose breakout turn as Laser in “The Kids Are All Right” helped propel him to stardom.


    his stans on tumblr r jumping 4 joy over this, can some1 explain why
    source

    0 0


    JUSTIN Bieber has been financially supporting his 38-year-old father, Jeremy Bieber.

    Jeremy was partying with his superstar son before and after the 19-year-old was arrested for a DUI and drag racing in Miami.

    “[Jeremy] was absent for most of Justin’s childhood, and has only been a presence his life in the past several years after the singer catapulted to super stardom,” a source told RadarOnline.

    “Jeremy loves the lifestyle his son leads, private jets, exotic cars and over the top vacations. Justin had been financially supporting Jeremy for several years. Jeremy treats Justin as a friend, a peer, instead of as his son, they’re buddies.

    “It’s absolutely no secret that Justin’s manager, Scooter Braun, and Jeremy don’t get along. Scooter has been the father figure in Justin’s life, and then all of a sudden, Jeremy pops back on the scene….look at all the chaos in Justin’s life.

    “Scooter is the voice of reason, and tells him stuff Justin doesn’t want to hear, and Jeremy is the opposite.”

    SOURCE

    0 0



    THE PLEA DEAL

    Paulk was arrested last August when he and his girlfriend got into a physical confrontation that ended with him allegedly kicking and punching her in the gut.

    According to court docs, Marcus plead no contest to one count of battery, and got 4 other charges dropped. As part of the deal, he must enroll in a year-long domestic violence treatment program.

    The deal also includes a protective order for Marcus to stay 100 yards away from his now ex-girlfriend.

    THE INCIDENT

    Marcus T. Paulk's girlfriend, a singer named Andi Roxx, claims it all started at a nightclub in Beverly Hills called Confidential. She and Paulk had gotten into a verbal argument because he said she wasn't paying him enough attention.

    When they went home, Roxx says the fight got physical and Paulk punched her in the chin. She says she swung back and busted open his lip. He then punched her again in the stomach and told her to get her stuff and get out. She claims he also kicked her in the stomach.

    The next morning, Roxx says she went to the hospital with internal injuries.
    Law enforcement sources say police responded to the hospital soon after, where Roxx told them what happened. Police later made contact with Paulk himself and his attorney arranged for Paulk to turn himself in.

    SOURCE #1SOURCE #2

    0 0



    It's almost as if they're rubbing salt in an open wound. Though director Bryan Singer has confirmed that Anna Paquin was cut from "X-Men: Days of Future Past," she still appears on a collectible Empire magazine cover for the movie.

    The "True Blood/X-MEN" star is in character as Rogue on the cover, one of 25 being released for the movie. When asked if that means she'll be appearing after all, the magazine tweets, "For those asking if our Rogue cover means Rogue is in the movie, a definitive statement from Bryan Singer and Simon Kinberg is in the issue."

    Don't get your hopes up, though. Rogue was only set to appear in one scene in the film and it "had to go," according to Singer. Chances are promotional materials for "Days of Future Past" were set long before the movie's editing process was done.

    In other news, Bryan Singer and Anna Paquin are set to co-chair this year Elton John AIDS Foundation 22nd Annual Academy Awards Viewing Party.

    "X-Men: Days of Future Past" is set for theaters May 23.

    sourcesource

    0 0

    Cutting off Trent Reznor was only the beginning of a bunch of FUs aimed at rock and metal. And before any of you rudely dismiss the complaints like I expect of some of you, imagine how you'd feel if your darlings were treated this way.



    Dear Grammy Awards Producers,

    After years past of some bizarre nominations in the hard rock and metal categories, it seemed like you finally had it right going into the 2014 ceremony. The Best Metal Performance field was well represented by acts like Black Sabbath, Anthrax, Killswitch Engage, Dream Theater and Volbeat (featuring King Diamond). Moreover, the list of performers, while mostly rooted in pop music, did seem promising with Metallica and an all-star collaboration between Nine Inch Nails, Queens of the Stone Age and Dave Grohl on the bill. However, once the ceremony started, it all started to go south when it came to honoring hard rock and metal. What went wrong? Let us count the ways …

    The Grammy Awards has been known to reward questionable older acts over newer and more active bands in past ceremonies. Remember when the flute-powered Jethro Tull’s ‘Crest of a Knave’ beat out Metallica‘s ‘… And Justice for All’ for Best Hard/Rock Metal Performance in 1989? However, this year marked an occurrence where a legendary act like Black Sabbath — the godfathers of metal themselves — actually had an incredibly relevant and triumphant year. And on top of that, they deservingly won the Best Metal Performance award for ‘God Is Dead?’ But when did TV viewers get to see Sabbath accept their award? They didn’t! Instead it was presented during the online-only pre-ceremony while Black Sabbath were still making their way into the building for the main event. Pop star Cyndi Lauper had to accept for them. Cyndi Lauper! All respect to Daft Punk, but did we really need to see them accept three awards during the main telecast?



    Not to mention, why didn’t Sabbath perform during the ceremony? Even if the show only had room for one metal performance, shouldn’t Sabbath have gotten the nod over Metallica, who didn’t release any new material last year. Preferably, both acts would have gotten to perform, or how about Metallica joining Sabbath onstage? What if Ozzy and Co. started out with ‘God Is Dead?’ and then were joined by ‘Tallica for a rousing rendition of ‘War Pigs’? Now, that would have been a sight to see. Instead we were treated to a bit of a hot mess, as Metallica were joined onstage by classical pianist Lang Lang. Perhaps a good idea in concept, but it was more chaotic than entertaining.

    While we understand that the Grammys can’t include every single musician who passed away in the last 12 months as part of the annual ‘In Memoriam’ segment, there’s one musician we fully expected to be represented during the montage — late Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman. After watching the segment the first time, we thought we may have missed the mention of Hanneman, yet we went back and watched it two more times. No mention at all! Here’s a man who was the chief songwriter in one of the world’s most legendary bands, penning some of the greatest metal tunes of all time, including ‘Angel of Death,’ ‘Raining Blood’ and ‘South of Heaven,’ among others. And did you forget that Slayer actually won two Grammys — one for Best Metal Performance in 2007 for ‘Eyes of the Insane’ and another for the same award in 2008 for ‘Final Six.’
    On top of that, we thought we may see a mention of classic Iron Maiden drummer Clive Burr, who passed away in March of 2013. Alas, he was sorely missing from your ‘In Memoriam’ segment, as well. Late Deftones bassist Chi Cheng did appear ever so briefly in the montage, but the absence of Hanneman and Burr is inexcusable.

    For rock fans sitting through three and a half hours of mostly pop performances, the highlight of the 2014 ceremony was set to be a collaboration between Nine Inch Nails, Queens of the Stone Age, Dave Grohl and Fleetwood Mac’s Lindsey Buckingham. The collaboration came at the very end of the show, with Trent Reznor starting things off by leading the all-star cast of musicians through the NIN song ‘Copy of A.’

    However, only seconds after the rock heroes switched into QOTSA’s ‘My God Is the Sun,’ Grammy producers decided to thank their sponsors and roll the credits while the rock luminaries performed in the distant background. Moreover, the telecast ended halfway into the performance. Considering that the show was already running 15 minutes late, what was the harm in staying on the air a couple more minutes? Would the Grammys have done that to Beyonce or Taylor Swift had one of them closed out the show? We think not. And apparently Trent Reznor agrees with us, sending out a profanity-laced Tweet shortly after the performance.

    Summary
    While we’ll keep our language a little less profane than that of Mr. Reznor, we’ll reference the NIN mastermind when we say: Hey Grammy producers, get your heads out of your holes and start giving metal and hard rock the respect they deserve!

    Sincerely,
    Your Friends at Loudwire



    Source

    0 0

    They were in L.A. the day before and I missed them, GDI...



    Dutch female-fronted symphonic rockers WITHIN TEMPTATION took part in a signing session and acoustic performance earlier today (Monday, January 27) at Vintage Vinyl in Fords, New Jersey.

    Fan-filmed video footage of the acoustic set can be seen below.

    WITHIN TEMPTATION's new album, "Hydra", will be released in North America on February 4. The album will be available in several luxury formats. The cover artwork was created by Romano Molenaar ("X-Men", "Batman", "The Unforgiving").

    Pre-order "Hydra" via iTunes now, and you will instantly receive the first two singles: "Dangerous", featuring a guest appearance by former KILLSWITCH ENGAGE singer Howard Jones and "Paradise (What About Us?)" featuring ex-NIGHTWISH singer Tarja Turunen.

    The digital premium album, complete with digi-booklet, will be available on iTunes and includes 18 audio tracks and a music video. The digital premium album features bonus "Evolution Versions" of four new songs, which contain audio commentary from guitarist Robert Westerholt and Sharon and give you unique access to the development of the songs, their lyrical inspiration and the sound of the initial demos and vocals.



    "Hydra" digital premium album track listing:

    01. Let Us Burn
    02. Dangerous (feat. Howard Jones)
    03. And We Run (feat. Xzibit
    04. Paradise (What About Us?) (feat. Tarja)
    05. Edge Of The World
    06. Silver Moonlight
    07. Covered By Roses
    08. Dog Days
    09. Tell Me Why
    10. Whole World Is Watching (feat. Dave Pirner)
    11. Radioactive (originally performed by IMAGINE DRAGONS)
    12. Summertime Sadness (originally performed by Lana del Ray)
    13. Let Her Go (originally performed by PASSENGER)
    14. Dirty Dancer (originally performed by Enrique Iglesias)
    15. And We Run (evolution track)
    16. Silver Moonlight (evolution track)
    17. Covered By Roses (evolution track)
    18. Tell Me Why (evolution track)
    19. Paradise (What About Us?) (feat. Tarja) music video (exclusive to iTunes premium version)

    Aside from the digital premium version, "Hydra" will also be released in a deluxe box set including exclusive items many of you have been asking for, for a long time:

    "Hydra" deluxe box set

    * "Hydra" 18-track album including bonus tracks in the form of a media book with a hot foil print cover, featuring a 100-page booklet consisting of unique photos
    * Double gatefold black vinyl version of the album including bonus tracks
    * Instrumental version of the entire album
    * Songbook with sheet music of the songs of the album
    * "Hydra" guitar pick
    * Packaged in an especially designed LP-sized box

    In a recent interview with Ultimate-Guitar.com, Sharon stated about the songwriting process for "Hydra"": "A lot of bands were inspired by the '80s at the time we were writing 'The Unforgiving' album. There was a lot of music based on the '80s coming out and it had a lot of '80s flavors. With this new album, even though we're only a few years further up the road, you can feel that music has changed again. Music is not inspired on the '80s, but more like there are different influences in the music again. Music's always organic, and you feel things are changing comfortably."

    She added: "When people asked us after 'The Unforgiving', 'Are you gonna make another 'Unforgiving' album?" we said, 'Of course.' Because we were really full of it in a positive way. We really like the album a lot and still do like it a lot but we really feel there's an '80s feel to the songs. When we started writing this album, again we felt like we were already knowing we were gonna go a different direction also."





    Beautiful as always.


    Source

    0 0



    Twenty-one years after the first allegations that Woody Allen abused his adopted daughter, that incident is back in the news thanks to the director’s ex-partner, Mia Farrow, and estranged son, Ronan Farrow. But what does a closer examination reveal?
    As anyone with access to a computer knows, Woody Allen has been pilloried of late across the internet, over allegations that 21 years ago, he molested the daughter he and Mia Farrow adopted in 1985. Countless people have weighed in on this, many of them without the slightest idea of what the facts are in this matter. I consider myself allergic to gossip and tabloids, and go out of my way to avoid them. So when a celebrity is being devoured by the two-headed piranha of gossip and innuendo, I usually have minimal understanding of what they did, or were alleged to have done. Woody Allen is an exception.


    I produced and directed the two-part PBS special, Woody Allen: A Documentary, that premiered in the U.S. on the “American Masters” series. I also supervised and consulted on the brief clip montage that aired as part of the recent Golden Globes telecast, when Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement.

    When I went online the morning after the Globes broadcast, I found more than one email asking if I had seen the previous night’s tweets from Mia Farrow and her son, Ronan. A quick search led me not only to the accusatory tweets, but to the explosion of internet chatter that followed in their wake. The more benevolent comments suggested Woody should rot in jail. Others were demanding his head on a pike.

    Last fall, Vanity Fair magazine ran an article about Mia and her family, which included an interview with the 28-year-old Malone (née Dylan), who, at the age of seven, was at the center of Mia’s allegations that made headlines during the brutal custody battle between her and Woody. In the recent interview, Malone stands behind her mother’s accusation. It was the one-two punch of the Vanity Fair piece and the Farrow tweets that stirred up the hornet’s nest that had remained somewhat dormant over the past 20 years.

    My documentary covered Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi Previn (Mia’s adopted daughter and Woody’s wife of 16 years) and the ensuing fall-out, but I chose not to go down the rabbit hole detailing the custody case, as my film was primarily about his work, and I had no interest in allowing it to turn into a courtroom drama. I did, however, thoroughly research the entire episode in order to reach my own conclusions about what did or didn’t take place.

    My association with Woody is primarily a professional one, though we’ve remained friendly since the documentary and still occasionally correspond by email via his assistant (since Woody still types on a 60-year old manual typewriter). When I wrote him the day after the ceremony, he was vaguely aware that Mia and Ronan had badmouthed him (again), but he wasn’t certain what Twitter was. (He’s heard of blogging and always confuses the two.) Because he doesn’t go online, he was blissfully unaware of how much ink (sorry, bandwidth) the story was getting. If he had known, he still wouldn’t have cared. Mia’s accusations were old business, and the fact that Ronan was publicly chiming in meant nothing to Woody, who hadn’t even seen his (alleged) son for 20 years. I also knew Woody would never publicly respond to any of this. His indifference to the gossip has always struck me not as a decision so much as an involuntary and organic reaction. In fact, during a written e
    xchange that day in which I mentioned the tweet attack, he was more focused on giving me advice about a stye I had on my eyelid that I joked was probably a brain tumor: “I agree, you probably do have a brain tumor. You should get your affairs in order quickly as those things can move rather rapidly. You’ll probably start to have some problems with your balance—don’t panic—it’s quite natural for a brain tumor.” He then counseled me not to use up my “remaining days” fretting over Mia.
    (Wait...wtf? lmfao)

    As the day progressed, it seemed the misinformation on the internet was growing exponentially spurious by the minute. The more even-keeled bloggers and pundits were asking, “Is it possible to separate the art from the artist?” or “Is America ready to forgive Woody Allen?” The very phrasing of these questions presumed that Woody had done something terrible, and we had to decide how much we would let it bother us. My wife suggested that in absence of a response by Woody, he was being swiftboated. His silence created a vacuum that everybody with a keyboard was going to fill with whatever they believed or thought they believed or heard from someone else who heard from someone who linked to the Vanity Fair article.

    I considered whether to enter the fray, since my credentials were in order, so to speak. I had researched these events, I knew Woody—was friendly with him, but we weren’t so close that anyone could rightfully accuse me of being in his pocket. Quite the opposite in fact, as Woody had already advised me not to get involved. But as I came across more and more articles and blogs filled with misinformation, my wife said something to me that struck a chord: “You have just as much right to weigh in on this as anyone else, regardless of what Woody thinks.”

    So here I go—contributing to the very noise I’ve been complaining about.

    ******************

    There are basically two issues at play here. One is Woody’s starting a romantic/sexual relationship with Mia’s adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn, in 1991. The other is Mia’s accusation—used during their custody battle for their three shared children—that Woody molested their 7-year-old adopted daughter Dylan. People tend to confuse these two issues, so let’s examine them separately.

    First, the Soon-Yi situation:

    Every time I stumble upon this topic on the internet, it seems the people who are most outraged are also the most ignorant of the facts. Following are the top ten misconceptions, followed by my response in italics:

    #1: Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.

    #2: Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.

    #3: Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.

    #4: Woody and Mia were married. False.

    #5: Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.

    #6: Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.

    #7: Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.

    #8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations. False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or ’72.)

    #9: Soon-Yi was borderline retarded. Ha! She’s smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.

    #10: Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride. Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia’s own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly “had his eye on her” from the time she was a child.

    Let me add this: If anyone is creeped out by the notion of a 55-year old man becoming involved with his girlfriend’s 19-year old adopted daughter, I understand. That makes perfect sense. But why not get the facts straight? If the actual facts are so repugnant to you, then why embellish them?

    It’s understandable that Mia would remain furious with Woody for the rest of her life. If I were in Mia’s position, I’m sure I’d feel the same way. (Though I’d likely handle it as a private matter and not be tweeting about him being a pedophile, just before tweeting, “omfg look at this baby panda.”) I also understand the simmering anger of Ronan Farrow (née Satchel), who has famously said of Allen, “He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.” However, this particular dilemma might be resolved by Mia’s recent revelations that Ronan’s biological father may “possibly” be Frank Sinatra, whom Farrow married in 1966, when she was 21 and the crooner was 50.

    While we’re on the subject, a word about this Sinatra business: To even say that Ronan is “possibly” Sinatra’s son implies that Mia was fooling around with her ex-husband decades after their divorce. Backdating from Ronan’s birthdate, it means that Farrow and Sinatra “hooked up” in March of 1987 when Mia was 42 and Old Blue Eyes was 71. This sort of dispels the myth that Woody and Mia had this idyllic, loving, monogamous relationship until Woody threw it all away in 1992, since Mia was apparently diddling her ex, five years earlier. If Mia was “just kidding” about the Sinatra scenario, it was an awfully insensitive thing to say, considering the fact that Sinatra’s wife, Barbara, is still very much alive. Did Mia stop to think how her coy tease might be perceived by the widow Sinatra? One can only wonder if this also fits Ronan’s definition of a “moral transgression.” (One may also wonder whether Woody is owed a fortune in reimbursement for child s
    upport.)

    I am not here to slam Mia. I think she’s an exceptional actress and I seriously admire her political activism. (I even follow her on Twitter.) But those who hate Woody “for what he did to Mia,” should be reminded that if Sinatra was indeed Ronan’s biological father (DUH), it’s not the first time Mia had a child by a married man. In 1969, at the age of 24, she became pregnant by musician/composer André Previn, 40, who was still married to singer/songwriter Dory Previn. The betrayal is said to have led to Dory Previn’s mental breakdown and institutionalization, during which she received electroconvulsive therapy. She would later write a song called, “Beware of Young Girls” about Mia. Maybe sleeping with your friend’s husband doesn’t earn as many demerits as sleeping with your girlfriend’s adopted daughter, but if you’re waving the “Never Forget” banner in Mia’s honor, let’s be consistent and take a moment to also remember the late Dory
    Previn. (Or better yet, let’s forget the whole damn thing, considering it’s none of our business.)

    ******************

    Now, on to the more delicate issue of Mia’s accusations during the custody case that Woody sexually abused Dylan/Malone.

    A brief but chilling synopsis of the accusation is as follows: On August 4, 1992, almost four months after the revelation about Woody and Soon-Yi’s relationship understandably ignited a firestorm within the Farrow household, Woody was visiting Frog Hollow, the Farrow country home in Bridgewater, Connecticut, where Mia and several of her kids were staying. During an unsupervised moment, Woody allegedly took Dylan into the attic and, shall we say, “touched her inappropriately.” Later in the day, it was alleged that the child was wearing her sundress, but that her underpants were missing. The following day, Mia’s daughter allegedly told her mother what had happened, and Mia put the child’s recounting of the story on videotape as evidence.

    Did this event actually occur? If we’re inclined to give it a second thought, we can each believe what we want, but none of us know. Why does the adult Malone say it happened? Because she obviously believes it did, so good for her for speaking out about it in Vanity Fair. Her brother Ronan believes it happened, so good for him for sticking up for his sister in 140 characters or less. They’ve both grown up in a household where this scenario has been accepted as indisputable fact, so why shouldn’t they believe it?

    I know I’m treading a delicate path here, and opening myself up to accusations of “blaming the victim.” However, I’m merely floating scenarios to consider, and you can think what you will. But if Mia’s account is true, it means that in the middle of custody and support negotiations, during which Woody needed to be on his best behavior, in a house belonging to his furious ex-girlfriend, and filled with people seething mad at him, Woody, who is a well-known claustrophobic, decided this would be the ideal time and place to take his daughter into an attic and molest her, quickly, before a house full of children and nannies noticed they were both missing.

    Even people who give Woody the benefit of the doubt and defend him on the internet are often confused on a few points. Some mistakenly say that the court found him “not guilty” of the molestation charges. The fact is there was never such a ruling because he was never charged with a crime, since investigative authorities never found credible evidence to support Mia’s (and Dylan’s) claim.

    [Woody] was never charged with a crime, since investigative authorities never found credible evidence to support Mia’s (and Dylan’s) claim.
    Let’s back up a bit: Mia’s allegations of molestation automatically triggered a criminal investigation by the Connecticut State Police, who brought in an investigative team from the Yale-New Haven Hospital, whose six-month long inquiry (which included medical examinations) concluded that Dylan had not been molested. I’ve since read a recurring canard that Woody “chose” the investigative team. Yet nobody has suggested how or why Mia’s team would ever outsource the investigation to a team “chosen” by Woody. Others have said that the investigators talked to psychiatrists “on Allen’s payroll” before letting him off the hook. The only way I can explain this is that the investigators, naturally, would have spoken with Woody’s shrinks before giving him a clean bill of health. So technically, yeah, Woody’s shrinks would have been paid a lot of money by Woody over the years. (Let’s even call it an annuity.) The same would be true of his dentist, his eye doc
    tor, and his internist.


    As for the evidentiary videotape of young Dylan’s claims, it’s been noted that there were several starts and stops in the recording, essentially creating in-camera “edits” to the young girl’s commentary. This raises questions as to what was happening when the tape wasn’t running. Was Mia “coaching” her daughter off-camera, as suggested by the investigators? Mia says no—she merely turned the camera on whenever Dylan starting talking about what Daddy did. Maybe we should take Mia at her word on this. Since I wasn’t therre, I think it’s good policy not to presume what took place.

    The videotape and the medical exams weren’t the only problems Mia faced in bringing abuse charges against her former lover. There were problems with inconsistencies in her daughter’s off-camera narrative as well. A New York Times article dated March 26, 1993, quotes from Mia’s own testimony, during which she recalled taking the child to a doctor on the same day as the alleged incident. Farrow recalled, “I think (Dylan) said (Allen) touched her, but when asked where, she just looked around and went like this,” at which point Mia patted her shoulders. Farrow recalls she took Dylan to another doctor, four days later. On the stand, Allen’s attorney asked Mia about the second doctor’s findings: “There was no evidence of injury to the anal or vaginal area, is that correct?” Farrow answered, “Yes.”

    In the midst of the proceedings, on February 2, 1993, a revealing article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, headlined: “Nanny Casts Doubt on Farrow Charges,” in which former nanny Monica Thompson (whose salary was paid by Allen, since three of the brood were also his) swore in a deposition to Allen’s attorneys that she was pressured by Farrow to support the molestation charges, and the pressure led her to resign her position. Thompson had this to say about the videotape: ““I know that the tape was made over the course of at least two and perhaps three days. I recall Ms. Farrow saying to Dylan at that time, ‘Dylan, what did daddy do… and what did he do next?’ Dylan appeared not to be interested, and Ms. Farrow would stop taping for a while and then continue.”

    Thompson further revealed a conversation she had with Kristie Groteke, another nanny. “She told me that she felt guilty allowing Ms. Farrow to say those things about Mr. Allen. (Groteke) said the day Mr. Allen spent with the kids, she did not have Dylan out of her sight for longer than five minutes. She did not remember Dylan being without her underwear.”

    On April 20, 1993, a sworn statement was entered into evidence by Dr. John M. Leventhal, who headed the Yale-New Haven Hospital investigative team looking into the abuse charges. An article from the New York Times dated May 4, 1993, includes some interesting excerpts of their findings. As to why the team felt the charges didn’t hold water, Leventhal states: “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother. We did not come to a firm conclusion. We think that it was probably a combination.”

    Leventhal further swears Dylan’s statements at the hospital contradicted each other as well as the story she told on the videotape. “Those were not minor inconsistencies. She told us initially that she hadn’t been touched in the vaginal area, and she then told us that she had, then she told us that she hadn’t.” He also said the child’s accounts had “a rehearsed quality.” At one point, she told him, “I like to cheat on my stories.” The sworn statement further concludes: “Even before the claim of abuse was made last August, the view of Mr. Allen as an evil and awful and terrible man permeated the household. The view that he had molested Soon-Yi and was a potential molester of Dylan permeated the household… It’s quite possible —as a matter of fact, we think it’s medically probable—that (Dylan) stuck to that story over time because of the intense relationship she had with her mother.” Leventhal further notes it was “very striking” that each t
    ime Dylan spoke of the abuse, she coupled it with “one, her father’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and two, the fact that it was her poor mother, her poor mother,” who had lost a career in Mr. Allen’s films.

    Much is made by Mia’s supporters over the fact that the investigative team destroyed their collective notes prior to their submission of the report. Also, the three doctors who made up the team did not testify in court, other than through the sworn deposition of team leader Leventhal. I have no idea if this is common practice or highly unusual. I won’t wager a guess as to what was behind the destruction of the notes any more than I’ll claim to know why Mia stopped and started her video camera while filming her daughter’s recollections over a few days, or who was alleged to have leaked the tape of Dylan to others, or why Mia wouldn't take a lie detector test. (Woody took one and passed.) In any event, destruction of the notes may have been part of the reason that, despite the very conclusive position taken by the investigators that Dylan was not abused, presiding Judge Elliot Wilk found their report “inconclusive.”

    Judge Wilk would ultimately grant Mia custody of Satchel and Dylan. 15-year-old Moses chose not to see Woody, which was his right. It was a hard-won victory for Mia who returned home with eight of her nine children intact. She would go on to adopt six more, including Thaddeus Wilk Farrow, named in honor of the Honorable Judge Wilk.

    Woody was granted supervised visitation of Satchel, but his request for immediate visitation with Dylan was denied until the young girl underwent a period of therapy, after which a further review of visitation would be considered. As a legal matter, the investigation of possible criminal abuse would continue.

    Almost four months after Wilk’s decision, the Connecticut authorities abandoned the criminal investigation, resulting in an unusual statement from Litchfield, Connecticut County Prosecutor Frank Maco, who dismissed the abuse charges against Woody, but still maintained that he had “probable cause” to believe Dylan. In the minds of many, the decision would leave Woody in a kind of moral limbo. Legally, he was cleared of everything—except a dark cloud of suspicion. Woody was furious, and called a press conference in which he referred to the state’s attorney office as “cowardly, dishonest and irresponsible. Even today, as they squirm, lie, sweat, and tap-dance, pathetically trying to save face and justify their moral squalor… there was no evidence against me. There is none now. I promise you, smear as they may, they will always claim to have evidence; but notice that somehow they will manage to find reasons why they can’t quite show it to you.”

    Woody’s ad-hoc press conference made for good television and was widely covered in the press. Less widely disseminated was a news item that appeared in the New York Times five months later (Feb. 24, 1994), which reported that a disciplinary panel found the actions of County Prosecutor Frank Maco (the “probable cause” guy) were cause for “grave concern” and may have prejudiced the case. It winds up that Maco sent his “probable cause” statement to the Surrogate’s Court judge in Manhattan who was still deciding on Allen’s adoption status of Dylan and Moses, which Mia was trying to annul. The panel wrote, “In most circumstances, [Maco’s comments] would have violated the prosecutor’s obligation to the accused. [His actions were] inappropriate, unsolicited, and potentially prejudicial.” The article states that the agency could have voted sanctions against Maco ranging from censure to disbarment. Though the decision was quite damning, Maco got what amounted
    to a slap on the wrist. Two years later, the reprimand was overturned, but Mia was unsuccessful in her bid to annul the adoptions. Legally, Woody remains the adoptive father of Dylan and Moses.



    Moses Farrow, now 36, and an accomplished photographer, has been estranged from Mia for several years. During a recent conversation, he spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation. He recently reestablished contact with Allen and is currently enjoying a renewed relationship with him and Soon-Yi.

    ******************

    Life would go on for both Woody and Mia, respectively. Aside from tending to her growing family, Farrow would come to be recognized as a leading human rights advocate, with special concern for the plight of children in conflict-torn regions. She has worked diligently to bring attention to the Sudanese genocide in Darfur, and has made many trips to the region, receiving several awards for her humanitarian efforts in the process. Woody Allen would continue his ritual of writing and producing a film per-year—an unprecedented pace he’s maintained since 1969. The accolades and awards continue to pour in, and no one is less impressed than Allen, who has traditionally stayed away from all awards shows.

    In 1997, Woody and Soon-Yi would marry in Venice, Italy, and over the next few years adopt two daughters. Anyone who has adopted is familiar with the vetting process conducted by social workers and licensed government agencies charged with looking out for the child’s welfare. Suffice it to say, the case of Woody and Soon-Yi was no exception, especially considering the highly-publicized events of 1992-93. Both adoptions, in two different states, were thoroughly reviewed by state court judges who found no reason why Woody and his wife shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. The girls, now aged 15 and 13, are named Bechet (after jazz saxophonist/clarinetist Sidney Bechet) and Manzie (after jazz drummer Manzie Johnson).

    It took me little more than two years to complete my film, Woody Allen: A Documentary. I conducted hours of filmed interviews with Woody, who put forward no ground rules about questions I could ask, or topics to avoid. Although I shot some film on location with Woody in London and Cannes, most of our filming took place in New York City. On more than one occasion, when I was planning to interview Woody, I found I had to schedule around mornings when he’d walk his kids to school, or attend parent-teacher conferences. The normalcy of his domestic life was somehow surprising to me. I’ve not spent a lot of time with his kids, but I’ve met them on a few occasions where I’ve received the cursory “hello,” as they went about their business doing girl stuff with their friends. The only parent-child tensions I’ve been privy to are that his girls think their father’s mean for not letting them have a dog, and that he’s an idiot for not knowing how to work a computer. Les
    t anyone accuse me of being in Woody’s pocket, I’ll confess that I side with his kids on both counts.

    My more recent professional association with Woody took place last month, when I was asked to work on the Allen clip montage for the Golden Globes. The montage editor, Nicholas Goodman, and I wanted to include a brief moment from The Purple Rose of Cairo, in which Mia appeared. The producers were concerned about whether she would sign a release for the clip. (The Screen Actors Guild maintains very strict rules about obtaining authorization from any actor who appears in a clip excised for compilations.) I thought it unlikely that Mia would object, as I had obtained a signed release for my documentary, in which she granted permission for her appearance in many lengthy clips from several Allen films. At the time, I was extremely grateful for her cooperation, for without it, I would have had a 12-year gap in my film, and Mia would have been extremely conspicuous by her absence. I even took it as a possible sign that 20 years after the fact, perhaps the healing process had begu
    n to take hold. As a further sign of good will, Mia agreed to the use of her “Purple Rose” clip in the Golden Globe montage. The producers of the show were grateful. Everyone agreed it would have been a shame not to acknowledge Mia’s contribution to so many of Allen’s best films.


    At the ceremony in Beverly Hills, actress Emma Stone, having just worked with Woody on his latest film Magic in the Moonlight, introduced the montage, followed by Diane Keaton’s surrogate acceptance speech, which was typically sentimental, loopy, and very Keatonesque. Woody, who would have never stopped throwing up had he been there, was instead in New York at the Stephen Sondheim Theatre for the opening of Beautiful: The Carole King Musical, whose book was written by Woody’s friend Doug McGrath. Woody had already told me that if the show let out early enough, he was hoping to get home in time to catch the last quarter of the football playoffs.

    Apparently, Mia and Ronan assigned more significance to the festivities than did Woody, seeing the televised occasion as a perfect opportunity to bring him down a few pegs. The first of Mia’s tweets, issued as the Woody segment commenced, was restrained and kind of cute: “Time to grab some icecream & switch over to #GIRLS.” I smiled when I read it, and thought, “Why not? You already saw the montage when you approved the use of your clip.” Her second tweet, referencing the recent Vanity Fair article, was nastier: “A woman has publicly detailed Woody Allen’s molestation of her at age 7. GoldenGlobe tribute showed contempt for her & all abuse survivors.”

    This one puzzled me. I thought it was odd to say the Globe tribute showed contempt for abuse survivors when Mia willfully participated in the festivities by expressly agreeing to the use of her clip, when she had every opportunity to decline. She certainly wasn’t pressured, and we had an alternative version of the montage (sans Mia) all ready to go in case she passed. It seemed Mia either wanted it both ways, or simply assumed no one would ever learn that she was complicit in the tribute. By the time I saw her third tweet, asking, “Is he a pedophile?” and linking to the Vanity Fair article, my most charitable thought was that this woman needs to get over herself. A more mischievous part of me wanted to repost her tweet, but swap out her link for one leading to an article about the recent 10-year jail sentence received by her brother, John Charles Villiers-Farrow, for multiple counts of child molestation—a topic she’s been unusually
    quiet about, considering her penchant for calling out alleged (let alone, convicted) molesters to whom she’s exposed her children.
    (Oop?)

    During a recent conversation, [Moses Farrow] spoke of “finally seeing the reality” of Frog Hollow and used the term “brainwashing” without hesitation.
    I was actually somewhat impressed with Ronan Farrow’s now-famous tweet from the summer of 2012: “Happy father’s day—or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law’s day.” The target was fair game, and I remember thinking Ronan had inherited his father’s wit—before his actual paternity came into question. (A good sense of humor and the ability to think on his feet will serve him well on his own show on MSNBC.) But his tweet the night of the Globes was a bit more vicious:“Missed the Woody Allen tribute—did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?” Brevity may be the soul of wit, if not nuanced accuracy. Had he stated that a woman publicly “alleged” molestation, it probably wouldn’t have triggered quite the reaction Ronan was looking for, just weeks before his show debuts. To remind readers that the woman is recalling memories from the age of seven, when a six-month investigatio
    n characterized her as being “emotionally disturbed,” and making statements that were likely “coached or influenced by her mother,” takes a little more than 140 characters.

    I’ve already said this, but it bears repeating: I know Dylan/Malone believes these events took place, and I know Ronan believes so too. I am not in a position to say they didn’t, any more than all the people on the internet calling for Woody’s head can say they did. The point is that accusations make headlines; retractions are buried on page twelve, and coerced accusations are as much a reality as coerced confessions. Since Woody literally pays no mind to this stuff, and he continues to work and have a happy home life, I would never suggest he’s a victim in this case. The real victim has always been Malone. For me, however, the real questions are: who’s doing the victimizing, and does pain really heal better in the public spotlight? I don’t pretend to have answers for either question.

    Malone, who is now a writer and artist, and happily married to an information-technology specialist, had been living a seemingly quiet life out of the spotlight. Obviously, if she feels that an interview with Vanity Fair is a necessary part of her healing process, that’s her right. I can only hope it brought her some closure, and I sincerely wish her all the happiness and peace she’s been looking for. I can even clear up one tiny mystery for her, of which I have personal knowledge. In the Vanity Fair article, Malone says that while a senior in college, she received in the mail a stuffed, manila envelope from Woody, filled with old photos of the two of them. She didn’t recognize the handwriting, but “(the envelope) had a fake return name: Lehman.” When I was working on my documentary, I’d occasionally request material from Woody’s office, which would be mailed to me by his assistant whose name would appear on the return address. During Malone’s senior year in c
    ollege, Woody had an assistant whose surname was Lehman. So there’s one mystery solved. If only all the others were so easy.

    As to the overall reliability or objectivity of Vanity Fair, I can’t really take a position. I do know that the publication was sued for libel in 2005 by director Roman Polanski who, in 1977, pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a thirteen-year-old girl in Los Angeles that year. The magazine published an article stating that in 1969, Polanski was seen fondling and hitting on a young model at Elaine’s restaurant in New York City on his way to the funeral of his late wife Sharon Tate, who had been brutally slain by the Manson family. One of the witnesses who testified on Polanski’s behalf was Mia Farrow, who, I’m told, remains friendly with the director to this day. I commend her for standing by her friend and going on record as a character witness. That’s what friends do. In fact, her support of Polanski is so steadfast that when he won the Oscar for best director for his 2002 masterpiece, The Pianist, Mia never even suggested that the Motion Picture Academy show
    ed contempt for all abuse survivors in so honoring him. But then again, those were the days before Twitter.

    Polanski won his libel suit against Vanity Fair. It was proven that the director wasn’t even in New York on his way to his wife’s funeral, which took place in Los Angeles.

    Source
    "One of the witnesses who testified on Polanski’s behalf was Mia Farrow, who, I’m told, remains friendly with the director to this day. I commend her for standing by her friend and going on record as a character witness. That’s what friends do. In fact, her support of Polanski is so steadfast that when he won the Oscar for best director for his 2002 masterpiece, The Pianist, Mia never even suggested that the Motion Picture Academy showed contempt for all abuse survivors in so honoring him. But then again, those were the days before Twitter."


    0 0
    0 0

    The 56th Grammy Awards









    @annakendrick47 #FanGirlOfTheYear







    "The Night That Changed America: A GRAMMY Salute To The Beatles"





    66th Annual Directors Guild Of America Awards




    'The Voices' Party on January 19, 2014 in Park City, Utah (posting this only because she looks cute and OMG HER DRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!)


    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | gifset
    she looked so beautiful @ the grammy's, love her






    0 0

    Sienna Miller on how she is grateful for a second shot in Hollywood


    Sienna Miller says she was unprepared for the attention she received after winning overnight fame as Daniel Craig’s love interest in Layer Cake.

    The actress survived on a steady diet of low budget independent films before scoring her first prominent role in the British gangster movie in 2004.
    But while it proved to be a springboard to international fame, she tells the March issue of the UK edition of Esquire that she wasn’t ready for the intense glare of the media spotlight.




    She said: ‘I was really naive, I think. I was a young 21. Not green as grass – I was by no means an innocent – but I had faith in the goodness of everyone.
    'I was very open. And that led me into all sorts of situations that backfired.’


    She said: ‘It had become difficult for me to get the work I wanted, if I’m really honest. It was a weird situation to be in because there was a lot of goodwill for me in Hollywood.
    ‘I think I’d been lucky in that I’d always been naughty in that town and people had always liked me for it. (But) I sabotaged things. I burnt a lot of bridges. I never read a review or paid any mind to what anyone said.

    ‘And that translated to how I behaved outside work. On set, I was first to arrive, last to leave, best friends with the crew, totally professional, no d***ing around.
    'But when I wasn’t at work, I wasn’t behaving the way you should. I’m very lucky to have a second chance in that town.’

    Sienna’s personal life has been forced into the public arena at the Leveson Inquiry, where phone hacking trials have heard claims of an intimate message left by the actress on Layer Cake co-star Craig's phone - and a sarcastic voicemail to the James Bond star from Jude Law.
    ‘It’s so personal, it’s such a raw nerve, it had such a massive effect on me, on my life and career, that I don’t know what would come out of it except I will kind of vent, in a fury,’ she said.

    ‘Believe me, there is a torrent of abuse I would love to hurl at half of their faces. But there are more eloquent people. I don’t trust myself. I’m too volatile.’


    source



    0 0



    The ‘Milkshake’ creator will deliver ‘Food’ on April 29. You can pre-order the album on iTunes and cop the lead single, ‘Jerk Ribs.’ The project is being described as a “soul record that’s as raw and alternative as it is classic.”
    Kelis will hit the stage next month at the BBC Radio 6 Music festival in February and then at Europe’s The Great Escape festival in May.
    ‘Food’ Tracklist
    1. ‘Jerk Ribs’
    2. ‘Breakfast’
    3. ‘Forever Be’
    4. ‘Floyd’
    5. ‘Runner’
    6. ‘Hooch’
    7. ‘Cobbler’
    8. ‘Bless the Telephone’
    9. ‘Fish Fry’
    10. ‘Change’
    11. ‘Rumble’
    12. ‘Biscuits ‘n’ Gravy’
    13. ‘Dreamer’
    x

    0 0

    article-2547176-1B03EBB300000578-828_634x848

    Justin Bieber’s arrest seemed to be the furthest thing from his mind when he was goofing around on the beach in Panama on Monday.

    After he was booked for alleged DUI and drag racing in Miami last week, the pop star fled to the holiday destination.

    The 19-year-old appeared to have not a care in the world as he relaxed on the sand with Chantel Jeffries, the model he was with at the time of his arrest.


    article-2547176-1B03E90400000578-300_634x730
    article-2547176-1B03E8FC00000578-32_634x759
    article-2547176-1B03E90800000578-655_306x484
    article-2547176-1B03E80700000578-339_634x492
    article-2547176-1B04797F00000578-536_634x365
    article-2547176-1B047E6200000578-684_634x379
    article-2547176-1B04839500000578-235_634x386
    article-2547176-1B0471C300000578-865_634x445
    article-2547176-1B04521200000578-677_634x732
    article-2547176-1B03E7F300000578-710_306x717
    article-2547176-1B03E8F000000578-496_306x717
    article-2547176-1B03E8B400000578-707_634x595
    article-2547176-1B03E88000000578-413_634x595
    article-2547176-1B03E8BC00000578-947_634x754
    article-2547176-1B03EC1F00000578-190_634x555
    article-2547176-1B03E85B00000578-994_634x528
    article-2547176-1B03E91200000578-994_306x743
    article-2547176-1B03EC1300000578-956_634x717

    Justin does still seem to be feeling the need for speed, however, as he was spotted zooming around on a large blue quad bike.

    A friend played cameraman as Justin shot an impromptu video while on the vehicle.

    At one point, the troubled star even appeared to dive off the bike.

    Chantel giggled at her rumoured beau while sporting a colourful printed bikini with a denim waistcoat over the top.

    Meanwhile Justin was clad in an oversized white, black and blue tank top, bizarre leather and denim shorts and white trainers.

    The Never Say Never hitmaker also had a Chicago Bulls baseball cap atop his brown hair and a gold chain around his neck.

    Justin looked like he was having the time of his life as he pulled faces while whizzing around the beach.

    Along with pretty Chantel, he was joined by a large group of male friends.

    The Canadian pop star also was greeted by a group of young fans who lined up to touch his hand as he drove by on the off-road vehicle.

    SOURCE

    0 0



    False nails have been around a long time, but they've been mostly pretty staid. They tend to come in natural colors, red, or pinks, or with Hello Kitty patterns if you're getting really crazy with it. A pair of designer/artists known as The Laser Girls are turning the fake-nail world on its head with wild 3D-printed creations.

    The Laser Girls' nails come in unusual colors like purple and black. The Black Castle design lends a long and creepy goth style to your fingertips, with a raised filigree pattern and pointy ends that look ready-made to top off a wicked-witch costume. They're printed out in nylon plastic.

    Another popular set has raised bumps along the top, making them look like a Lego piece got together with a Lee Press-on Nail and had kids. The nails are attached using either nail glue or thin mounting tape, like the kind used for scrapbooking. The nails can be used multiple times if you are careful with them.

    The Laser Girls were recently chosen as spotlight designers-in-residence at 3D-printing company Shapeways, where full nail sets can be purchased for between $35 and $140. The priciest ones are printed in bronze-infused stainless steel. There are more designs on the way, including ones that look like bubbling molecules, and ones with chevron patterns.

    These nails should put us one step closer to a complete 3D-printed fashion makeover. Just add them on with a 3D-printed dress, some 3D-printed shoes, and a 3D-printed necklace.

    SOURCE

    0 0




    Studs in leather? Check. Swordplay? Check. Buckled swash? Check. Medieval cleavages? Check. Over-complicated facial hair? Check. Dead-eyed Peter Capaldi as Louis XIII's enforcer Cardinal Richelieu, that 17th-century prototype of Capaldi's Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It? Check.

    There's so much diverting stuff in BBC1's current adaptation of The Musketeers that you might have missed perhaps its most intriguing aspect. One Telegraph reader didn't during their below-the-line rant against what they called a "dumbed down romp". "And," they sighed, mid-tirade, "there is the one obligatory part-black character to prove that multiculti [sic] political correctness outweighs historical accuracy."

    What's the problem? That in the new adaptation, Porthos, traditionally a fat white comedy turn (think: Oliver Platt in the 1993 comedy The Three Musketeers) is a trim, sexy musketeer of colour played by Howard Charles.

    But should Porthos be black? In one sense, sure, why not? If a black actor such as David Harewood, say, can play the (probably white) English nobleman Sir Harry Hotspur in the National Theatre production of Shakespeare's King Henry IV without critics whining about the historical accuracy (trickier in fact for a white actor to play Othello since the colour of the Moor's skin is inscribed deep in Shakespeare's verse), surely a black musketeer isn't a stretch.

    But that isn't the issue. Rather, the casting of Porthos works as a homage to the parentage and race of Alexandre Dumas père, author of The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo (and father of Alexandre Dumas fils, who wrote La Dame aux Camélias). Alexandre père's father (or, if you prefer, the père's père), General Alexandre (Alex) Dumas, was black Haitian, the son of an aristocratic French father, Marquis Alexandre Davy de la Pailleterie, and a freed slave, Marie-Cesette Dumas. And he was a general in Napoleon's grande armée.

    Certainly, Howard Charles is aware of that ancestry. In a recent interview in the Cambridge News the actor said he had been inspired by reading The Black Count, Tom Reiss's recent book on the life of General Alexandre (Alex) Dumas. "He was a general, when I guess there weren't many brown people around in uniform, so I was really attracted to that element," said Charles. Alex's dad sold the boy as a slave to pay for his passage to France (that's remedial parenting classes for you, Marquis de la Pailleterie) before buying his freedom. Later, Alex rose through the ranks of the army to become a general before he was 30. He was so effective that that the Austrians called him Der schwarze Teufel ("the Black Devil"). During the French revolution fought with other black men in a unit called the African Legion.

    But does any of this legitimise having a black Porthos? If it confounds the unwarranted presumption that he was white, then why not? What the black Porthos does, helpfully, is challenge the increasingly implausible myth of a Europe that was altogether white before large-scale 20th-century immigration from former colonies. The "historical accuracy" that some people want from Sunday-night costume dramas may demand that Europe was whitewashed, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit.

    We've been here before. I once wrote about claims that George III's consort Charlotte had African ancestry. We'd had theories – shattering to white supremacists, intriguing to the rest of us – that Beethoven was black, so why not a black queen of England? What was most striking to me in all this was that the US city named after her (Charlotte, North Carolina) had used these claims to help improve race relations. Perhaps Queen Charlotte's story could, I argued then, do the same over here. It hasn't, as you'll have noticed. That, I suspect, is why it's worth casting a black actor as Porthos – to shake some Europeans out of their racist delusions.


    source

    0 0


    Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is obviously a fan of the mantra - the bigger the hair the closer to heaven.

    And the model demonstrated just that as she appeared on the cover of Harper's Bazaar's annual spring fashion edition wearing a particularly voluminous look.

    The model, Karl Lagerfeld and Carine Roitfeld have collaborated on the coveted March issue of Harper’s Bazaar, and Rosie takes centrestage on the cover for the special issue of the magazine.

    The avid gym bunny showed no qualms as she posed topless for the style issue, save for a few strategically placed beads.

    Former Vogue Paris editrice Carine, international editor at large for Harper’s Bazaar, collaborates on this special issue once a year.

    And her chosen model Rosie will grace a range of Harpers Bazaar covers internationally, while the main fashion story was shot by legendary designer and photographer Karl Lagerfeld.

    It's a stunning return to high-fashion for Rosie who looks supremely elegant after a 50s style makeover, complete with hot pink lips and a fluffy pink cashmere sweater on the cover of Carine's Edit.


    source

older | 1 | .... | 570 | 571 | (Page 572) | 573 | 574 | .... | 4450 | newer