Today's mailbag question comes from Shannon: What do you make of this Eddie Murphy situation?
Answer: I feel like the Eddie Murphy situation is really the Brett Ratner situation since Eddie's defection from the hosting gig was really just a side effect of BR's resignation as producer. To be honest, I can completely understand Eddie saying, "I'm out!" when the conditions under which he signed on for the broadcast were suddenly drastically altered. After all, Brett Ratner seemed to be steering the ship of Eddie's two-part 2011 comeback (first Tower Heist, then Oscar night). When you're the most successful comedian of all time, you probably don't want or need to role the dice with a new ship captain when it's just as likely that the new guy will be terrible and the whole thing will go up in flames -- who needs that kind of nonsense when your movies have grossed over 6.5 billion dollars worldwide?
The Brett Ratner Situation is basically this: In the space of what felt like two seconds, BR does a TV interview on G4's Attack of the Show during which he spoke explicitly about his sex life and used an anti-gay slur. He then does a phone interview with Howard Stern in which he further details his past sexcapades with various actresses. The Academy is flooded with complaints about his ass-y behavior, and Ratner ultimately tenders his resignation as Oscar night producer.
Obviously, there are (and should be) consequences for saying offensive things when one is in the public eye, so I'm not necessarily questioning his removal/resignation as Oscar producer on that basis. However, it seems likely to me that his removal/resignation had less to do with the Academy taking a stand against bigotry and more to do with their concern about bad press/ratings. I feel like Ratner's recent public apologies and meetings with GLAAD to organize more public discussions on LGBT issues go a lot further toward making amends than resigning his post at the Oscar night helm. Which, brings me to my first question...
When did the Academy suddenly decide to become the morality police? As many media figures (including the aforementioned Howard Stern) have already pointed out, the Academy has previously recognized and applauded the work of many artists with bigoted, morally suspect (and sometimes downright criminal) personal behavior -- the most obvious example is filmmaker Roman Polanski who has three Oscar nominations (and one win)* for Best Director despite being arrested on six counts of sexual assault including the rape of a thirteen year old girl. Don't misunderstand me, I am obviously strongly opposed to both sexual assault and anti-gay slurs, I just wonder why the Academy chose now to take a moral stand after claiming a sort of art-is-blind position so many times in the past.
Back to Brett Ratner and his week 'o shame -- I have a marginally related follow up question:
Why does Howard Stern bring out the worst in people? Seriously, does he ruphie his guests? Does he spike their PBRs with some kind of despicable veritas serum that turns everyone into assholes? Because truly, nearly every guest who goes on that show more often than not ends up behaving like an idiot -- generally of the crass/offensive variety. Let's look at some examples...
Exhibit A: Wilmer Valderrama (aka the deflowering starlets debacle)
Oh, Wilmer Valderrama. I admit there's probably some ambiguity about the line between honesty and TMI when it comes to talking about past relationships, but I'd imagine that pretty much everyone can agree that talking about your famous conquests' nether regions is crossing the line.
Exhibit B: Quentin Tarantino (aka the Brad-Pitt-hash snafu)
No sooner had Brad Pitt finished telling Bill Maher that he swore off pot smoking as soon as his kids were born, than Quentin Taratino blabbed to Howard Stern that he and Brad got wasted while Angelina was in the hospital giving birth to their twins. According to Tarantino, Brad pulled out a brick of hash, cut QT off a slice and tossed him a Coke can to use as a bong. At best, putting Brad on blast has got to be some kind of bro-code violation, no? Uncool, QT.
Exhibit C: David Arquette (aka the save-it-for-the-marriage-counselor overshare)
Shortly after separating from wife, Courtney Cox, David Arquette called the Howard Stern show and laid out the details of their dwindling sex life and his subsequent affair with a waitress. Um, yikes.
Exhibit D: Tony Bennett (aka the 9/11 fiasco)
All right, so admittedly Tony Bennett is both a living legend and also 85 years old. However, neither of those things kept the proverbial excrement from hitting the fan after he told Howard Stern that the United States caused the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
And there are like, countless others (I didn't even get into the Jesse James idiocy). What's the deal Howard Stern? What kind of voo doo do you throw down to get these celebrities to brush away their publicists' pesky warnings and in some cases, say the worst stuff ever on tape (all you gnarly kiss-and-tell-ers, I'm looking at you)? My friend (and radio enthusiast), Ray, claims that over the years, Stern has developed a conversational interview style that disarms his guests and gets them to open up. Whatever. I still say it's voo doo.
xo,
Lindy
*Note: I did not count the nominations Roman Polanski received prior to being indicted for sexual assault.
0 comments:
Post a Comment