Bret Easton Ellis was once known as a brilliant writer who possessed a deliciously biting satiric wit and penned fabulous (if ultimately disturbing) novels such as Less Than Zero and American Psycho that were adapted into iconic films. These days, Bret is best known for getting sh-tfaced drunk and launching into (sometimes) offensive Twitter tirades that, by his own admission, have the end result of creating fallout that transforms him into a couch-bound depressive. Well, he still does other stuff too like pen the screenplay for The Canyons, which starred Lindsay Lohan — enough said.

One wonders exactly why Bret continues to engage within drunken Twitter trainwrecks of the solo variety. Most recently, he was called out for his sexists tweets about director Kathryn Bigelow, whom he insisted “would be considered a mildly interesting filmmaker if she was a man but since she’s a very hot woman she’s really overrated.” Bret followed up with “if The Hurt Locker” had been directed by a man it would not have won the Oscar for best director.” He later admitted to being drunk and sort of apologized by way of pointing out that he’s a gay male and therefore a member of a persecuted class, so this should have a huge impact on how we interpret his still-sexist words.

Now Bret has gone and offended the gay community through a series of tweets that span the past few years. One such example (and I’ll list more at the bottom of this post) occurred in April 2011 wherein he stated that watching “Glee” is like “stepping into a puddle of HIV.” While Bret’s words in the above instance are so forthright and politically incorrect that they’re almost amusing, GLAAD was decidedly not impressed by what they perceived as a “callous” public stance on the LGBT community. So they disinvited (or rather, banned) Bret from the GLAAD Media Awards, and of course Bret expressed his displeasure on Twitter. In response to the ban, he tweeted, “As a gay man in a domestic partnership who plans to get married, I’m sad to hear I’ve been banned by GLAAD from attending tomorrow’s event. GLAAD is supposedly ‘furious’ about my tweets. And I’m guessing not the ones concerning my boyfriend or how sexy I think Adam Driver is.”

Bret further alleged that he was specifically warned not to tweet his feelings on the ban: “After GLAAD banned me they told the friend who was bringing me to the event to WARN ‘Bret not to go public or TWEET about this decision.‘”

Bret then went on to state his disgust at GLAAD’s choice of Bill Clinton as winner of the Advocate for Change Award by pointing out that Clinton signed DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell while also cheating on Hillary (not sure what that last one has to do with gay people, but whatever).

Naturally, Bret’s tweets put the media on bemused alert, and GLAAD defended its decision with the following rationale:

GLAAD’s Vice President of Communications Rich Ferraro told EW, “Given the crude remarks [Bret's] made about the gay community and people living with HIV/AIDS, this publicity stunt is not surprising.”

The organization revealed that it has attempted to rectify its issues with him and his insensitive comments previously, but he has failed to respond to its requests. “GLAAD spoke with the guest who was planning to bring Bret about his recent remarks, which the gay community responded negatively to. We also asked for a time to sit down with Bret and planned to invite other leaders in the gay community as well as the HIV/AIDS community,” Ferraro said. “The guest replaced Bret at the fundraiser and there has been no response from Bret regarding the meeting. It is a shame and disservice to the gay community that Bret appears to be trying to overshadow the high-profile allies, including Betty White, Chris Evans, Kelly Rowland and so many others who used the event to show their support for LGBT people and advocated for equality in the Boy Scouts, marriage and across the country.”

[From Popwatch]

Among the tweets that offended GLAAD enough to ban Bret from attending the ceremony were an August 2012 tweet where he declared Matt Bomer to be a terrible choice for 50 Shades of Grey: “Okay I’ll say it. Matt Bomer isn’t right for Christian Grey because he is openly gay. He’s great for other roles but this is too big a game.”

Bret has also stated that “The New Normal” (which was honored by GLAAD) is “a gay minstrel show” that features Andrew Ranell, who “makes Sean Hayes in Will & Grace seem like Jason Statham in just about anything.” Damn, dude.

What are we to make of all of this? Bret Easton Ellis obviously fancies himself a drunken artisan of politically incorrect tweets, which is fine. However, Bret doesn’t realize that GLAAD has the right to be offended at whatever remarks it chooses to be offended by, and just because Bret is gay, that doesn’t mean that GLAAD will necessarily embrace him as a representative of their causes. Like, the dude really thinks that being gay means he can say whatever he wants without repercussion, and he doesn’t realize that while he’s free to express his opinions, not everyone has to embrace them as a stellar example of humanity, gay or otherwise.

Photos courtesy of Bret Easton Ellis on Facebook and Twitter

Here is a photo of director Kathryn Bigelow at the Los Angeles premiere of her latest film, Zero Dark Thirty. She’s such a confident-looking woman who also just happens to be really damn good at her job too, right? After all, she won the Best Director Oscar in 2009 for The Hurt Locker (famously beating her ex-husband, James Cameron, who was also nominated for his work on Avatar), and she might very well win this year for Zero Dark Thirty as well. That’s the buzz anyway.

If Bret Easton Ellis has anything to do with it, however, (and thankfully, he won’t have anything to do with it at all) Kathryn will not win any major awards for her latest effort because the world will realize the unerring truth of his opinion that Kathryn has only risen to the top of her game because she’s a beautiful woman. In fact, Bret further postulates that if Kathryn were a dude, people would have barely taken any notice of her films at all. Even Point Break? Them’s fighting words.

If you’re not familiar with the works of Bret Easton Ellis, he’s the once prolific author of novels like Less Than Zero and American Psycho that were deliciously filled with all manner of biting social satire. To be honest though, Bret hasn’t done much lately except tweet borderline-offensive statements and write The Canyons (Lindsay Lohan’s latest movie). Dude also digs shades. A lot.

Here’s what happened to spark this latest controversy — about a week ago, Bret started tweeting (and he admits now that he was drunk off his ass while doing so) crap like, “Kathryn Bigelow would be considered a mildly interesting filmmaker if she was a man but since she’s a very hot woman she’s really overrated.” And then it kind of snowballed from there. Here are the relevant tweets:

Now Bret has admitted that he was “beyond douchiness” to tweet the things he did about Kathryn’s work, but not really. He still pretty much stands by everything he’s said except for the word “junk,” and he attempts to explain everything in a former apology letter posted to Kathryn on the Daily Beast. God, this sucker is long, but here are the relevant excerpts:

This was my Twitter-casual response to both the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics Circle awarding Bigelow best director of the year, and awarding her new movie Zero Dark Thirty, about the 10-year hunt for Osama bin Laden, Best Picture. I hadn’t seen Zero Dark Thirty but thought, in the Twitter-moment, can it really be that good? Marc Boal and Kathryn Bigelow and another war film?

Everything about their previous effort, The Hurt Locker, seemed to me not bad, exactly, but tepid, simplistic, crude, TV-movie-ish–except for the extended sniper set-piece, ending with a whirlwind of sand blowing across the desert, a haunting visual grace note to a scary, tense scene. The Hurt Locker also felt like it was directed by a man. Its testosterone level was palpable, whereas in Sofia Coppola’s work you’re aware of a much softer presence behind the camera. In 2009, after The Hurt Locker had dominated the Oscars, I had tweeted something along the lines of: the main aspect of The Hurt Locker that interests me most is that it was directed by a “beautiful woman” rather than a man (or something like that). No one really said anything; there was very little favoriting or retweeting or unfollowing then.

The only thing that bothers me about [my tweets] is the use of the word “junk.” No, the movies listed above aren’t junk. Their level of craftsmanship is often quite high. They might be just OK as movies, but they’re certainly not junk in terms of execution. “Junk” is the writer’s exclamation point. It’s the writer’s Twitter flourish to a kind of dead sentence, filled with a list, and an echo of what bothered me about The Hurt Locker–because she was again being sold as the front-runner for perhaps her second directing Oscar with what looked like a very similar film. And what point was I trying to make exactly? I mean, what “visionary” filmmaker ever wins an Oscar? So what if competent technicians usually win it? That’s why the Oscars exist. So: I don’t really like any of the above films–and except for the use of the word “junk” I’m fine with that tweet (it’s not gender specific–it’s specifically about Bigelow’s work).

Twitter seems like a writer’s funhouse to me, not something I’d use “seriously” to “hurt” someone. I don’t want to hurt anybody. And I’m not even saying that Kathryn Bigelow was hurt or even noticed the tweets or even cared. I imagine her balls are bigger than that. I thought that in the Bigelow tweets people might find a certain truth (Yes, Bret! Tell us the truth! You’d know!) about the hypocrisy of the world, of the Hollywood mindset, beautiful women in the movie biz, reverse sexism, etc. But they ultimately revealed a much more layered sexism that, I guess I thought as a gay man, I could get away with since my supposed vitriol about Bigelow was coming from another “oppressed” class. But in 140 characters it didn’t land that way.

I’ve taken a lot of hits in my career–they bounce off. The armor was built so long ago that I now assume everyone else in the public eye can handle it when they’re shot at. But the outcry over the Bigelow tweets was eye-opening to me in a way that nothing else has ever been. I got it. I heard it. I looked back at what I was doing with those tweets (quickly, unconsciously, hurriedly, drunkenly) and I have to admit they simply back-fired. Which is why I’m writing this. No one asked me to write this. I simply write something like this when I’m in pain. And I’ve been slowly feeling a painfulness when reading all of the articles reacting to those tweets.

The American press’s reaction to the Bigelow tweets was swift and overwhelming. Without reading the news I could still feel it swirling in the air because everyone around me was talking about it. It was by far the most sustained attack on anything I had tweeted about. What was odd about the collective anger was that the tweets were solely about daunting, glamorous Kathryn Bigelow–they were not directed at women everywhere, yet women united and seemed to bond over what they perceived as both a much broader and more personal “attack” (a word used often in the articles in the days that followed). What started bothering me was: what does my thinking Bigelow is physically hot have to do with anything? What point was I trying to make with that? That her success is due to her physicality? Was there anyway to get my real thoughts and feelings through in 140 characters and in a coherent and intelligent manner? Or do 140 characters (or less) determine that what you’re trying to say is sometimes going to come off as shallow, or mean-spirited, or wrong?

[From Daily Beast]

Okay, one decent thing I can say about Bret Easton Ellis in this situation is that at least he didn’t pull a Chris Brown and delete his Twitter account in a fit of childish anger after the controversy hit. Still, Bret appears to be blaming the medium instead of the message that his tweets sent. Somehow, he feels like the fact that he was confined to a series of 140 character tweets is an excuse for the fact that he explicitly said that Kathryn is only considered a great director because she’s a hot chick. Also, the fact that Bret is a gay male is supposed to have some effect on how we interpret his sexist words, I guess. Whatever.

Ultimately, Bret might admit to being “in pain” over the reaction to his words, but he still doesn’t get why his statements were offensive, and in a column that spans over 2000 words, he’s still failed explain his point more fully. As for Bret’s excuse that alcohol was to blame for his tweets, he may just be one of those people whose true personality is merely revealed by the hard stuff. As in, he’s probably always a bit of a douche, and the hard douche comes out with the hard liquor. Who knows? Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how celebrities act out on Twitter (i.e., Eli Roth and his tissue evidence) and then are somehow surprised when people notice and make a big deal out of it. With 365,489 followers, you’d think that Bret Easton Ellis would realize that at least a few of his followers are reading and retweeting everything that he tweets.

Photos courtesy of Bret Easton Ellis on Facebook, Twitter, and WENN

As you know by know, I really dislike Glee. I dislike the actual show, I dislike the actors on the show, I dislike the characters, and most of all, I dislike the IDEA of the show. As such, I don’t watch that junk. But far be it from me to judge a masochist like Bret Easton Ellis! BEE is the author of such novels as American Psycho, Less Than Zero and The Rules of Attraction. He was also working on a script for The Golden Suicides, which we talked about last year. BEE also hates Glee. But he still totally watches it:

[From Bret Easton Ellis’s Twitter]

Is this wrong? Sure. Should we, as a society, not makes jokes about puddles of HIV? Of course. Did I giggle? Yep. I also appreciate that Bret made it clear that he was not drunk, and I liked the reference to “the hivs”. Gah! I’m going to hell, you can just say it. Not only do I hate Glee, I laugh at jokes about puddles of HIV. HELL… see you there!

By the way, I’m brining this up because YOU KNOW Ryan Murphy is going to say something. This is a preemptive strike.

Photos courtesy of GQ.