May 09, 2008 |
|
|
|
"CAN SOMEONE please tell me what this mother has done that is so incredibly wrong? Other than a few emotional outbursts and some rather odd behavior? Really - most heroin addicts with criminal records still have visitation rights."
This was a person commenting back on TMZ, reacting to one of the Web site's endless, bitchy Britney Spears postings. (Britney has regained some access to her two young boys, having been calmer - and having been working! - for the past several months.)
Well, I have to agree. I was moved by this person's plea for balance in Britney-bashing, especially after I saw a story on the news about a 2-year-old child who was videotaped smoking a joint. The mother retains custody, but she is going for . . . "parenting lessons." Lesson No. 1: Do not turn your toddler into a pothead!
Britney's head-shaving and middle-of-the-night breakdowns seem hardly in the same league.
OUR FAVORITE celeb parent, Dina Lohan, mother of Lindsay, is about to burst onto the reality-TV scene with her own series. Judging by preview clips, I'd say that Tracey Ullman's blistering impersonation of her on Showtime's "State of the Union" was way too kind.
As for young Miss Lindsay, she hasn't been photographed passed out anywhere recently, but the media has a new angle - she's a klepto. Supposedly stole a mink coat. Perhaps she's still in a bit of a withdrawal phase. No to drink, yes to mink!
AND HERE is our final "bad girl" item. Miley Cyrus, self-proclaimed victim of those monsters at Vanity Fair.
Flipping through one of the weekly glossies - I always feel as if I've been lobotomized after I turn the last page - there was a pic of Miley, wearing a little minidress, barely covering her crotch. She looks about 25. She's 15, and wears a "purity ring," announcing her commitment to virginity. (I didn't notice it in this picture!) Miley's mini was by far a more suggestive get-up than the sheet Annie Leibovitz draped her in to show off a bit of her back.
The entire Vanity Fair "scandal" was a well-choreographed stunt. Good for Miley, good for VF, and even good for the House of Mouse, Disney. Their product, Miss Cyrus, got a million bucks worth of publicity, and the coming season of "Hannah Montana" will no doubt be a ratings gold mine.
NOW THAT HBO's brilliant miniseries "John Adams" has ended its run, I can go back to concentrating on Showtime's lusty "The Tudors." If not conceived on quite the level of "John Adams," the Showtime series does provide compelling TV, and some of the history is correct. There is fudging and abridging, but on the whole, you get the proper perspective on matters such as Henry VIII breaking with the Catholic Church for the love of Anne Boleyn.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers remains the sexiest Henry ever put on put film (his often naked backside emphasizing the perky point of his appeal). But he is also brutally convincing as a ruler who is lethal in his obsessions. Henry defies the pope for the woman he covets, but when Anne cannot provide an heir, he claims then to have been "bewitched" and the Lady Anne's fabled "little neck" is soon in jeopardy.
When I interviewed Jonathan a few weeks back, he spoke with great admiration for the work of Natalie Dormer, who plays Anne. He said, 'She broke down walls with her work." I have to agree. Dormer is sensational, running a desperate gamut of emotions as Anne is raised high and brought low.
WHEN EMMY nominations roll in, I do expect the entire cast, the director and writers of "John Adams" to be recognized. Is there such a thing as an actor who is literally "too good?" In the case of Laura Linney, now on Broadway in "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" I'd say yes. She seems incapable of making a wrong step. (You have rarely seen such exquisite, malicious evil-doing hauteur as Linney performs on the B'way stage.)
Her Abigail Adams on TV was a study in quiet intelligence, loving forbearance and a spirit perhaps even more in tune with America's fight for independence than that of her husband. And those who criticized Paul Giamatti as John Adams clearly did not read David McCullough's fantastic book. Giamatti was Adams to an egocentric, unattractive, fascinating T. The "Adams" script was excellent, often sparse, requiring a great deal of the actors, every glance and gesture had to count.
But I hope the bodice-ripping cast of "The Tudors" won't be ignored, just because so many of them are great-looking and often naked. Dormer deserves a nod, as does Maria Doyle Kennedy as Henry's long-suffering first wife, Katherine. Also, Jeremy Northam as the principled-to-the-block Sir Thomas More. And Jonathan? If you can get past his sultry good looks, he is actually delivering the acting goods. Henry was a complex man, and Jonathan conveys his youthful conflicting desires with passionate petulance and a brutality born of his time and royal birthright. (He didn't really want to behead Thomas More, but sometimes there's just no other way to make a point.)
Like all good-looking actors, Jonathan is a prime example of Freud's philosophy that "Anatomy is destiny."
Jonathan probably won't get his thespian due until somebody says, "cover it up; you can't get away with that anymore." That day is not around the corner. Jonathan is unabashedly vain and narcissistic. And he's only 30.
What is the king doing tonight? Moisturizing!
(E-mail Liz Smith at MES3838@aol.com, or write to her c/o Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, NY 14207.)
©2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
|
|
© NEWSDAY INC. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES INC.
|
|
