I saw this on the Today Show this morning, and I honestly can’t believe that it’s still an ongoing controversy. Let me recap: a week ago, a New York Times ballet/theatre critic Alastair Macaulay wrote a review of the New York Ballet’s current production of The Nutcracker. The critic snipped about principal dancer Jenifer Ringer, “Jenifer Ringer, as the Sugar Plum Fairy, looked as if she’d eaten one sugar plum too many.” Then, instead of just apologizing or retracting the story, Macaulay wrote a “pity poor me” piece about his own struggles with his weight… and about the history of ballet and the “industry standard” in ballet for young women to be radically underweight. Well, the Today Show had an interview with Jenifer Ringer this morning, and she’s being smart about the criticism, basically saying that even though she used to be anorexic, she doesn’t want an apology from Macaulay about his bitchy comments – she’s only concerned about the message it sends to women:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A ballerina who overcame anorexia doesn’t need or want an apology from the New York Times critic who made a crack about her weight in a review of “The Nutcracker,” saying the comment hurt initially but is just part of being a professional in a field that demands perfection from those who work in it.

“As a dancer, I do put myself out there to be criticized, and my body is part of my art form,” Jenifer Ringer, 37, told TODAY’s Ann Curry during an interview Monday. “At the same time, I am not overweight.”

‘One sugar plum too many’
Ringer and a male dancer were singled out by critic Alastair Macaulay after he attended a Nov. 28 performance of the holiday classic by the New York City Ballet.

“Jenifer Ringer, as the Sugar Plum Fairy, looked as if she’d eaten one sugar plum too many,” Macaulay wrote in a review published in The Times three days later.

The comment sparked online fury against the critic by ballet enthusiasts who were familiar with Ringer’s struggles with her body image as a younger dancer.

“Not cool, man,” celebrity blogger Perez Hilton wrote on his website.

Other bloggers were less gentle, prompting Macaulay to write a second column about Ringer’s weight, his own weight loss, his childhood asthma, a condensed history of weight and ballet as an art form, and more.

“Some correspondents have argued that the body in ballet is ‘irrelevant.’ Sorry, but the opposite is true. If you want to make your appearance irrelevant to criticism, do not choose ballet as a career,” Macaulay wrote in a piece published Dec. 3.

“The body in ballet becomes a subject of the keenest observation and the most intense discussion. I am severe — but ballet, as dancers know, is more so,” Macaulay continued.

Getting over it
The controversy stung Ringer initially, she acknowledged to Curry on Monday. But in the ensuing days, she drew strength from the support she received from the general public and the dance community.

“It made me feel bad. It is embarrassing to see something bad written about yourself in print. I had to tell myself that was one person’s opinion out of 2,000 people who were there,” Ringer said. “The outpouring of people who leapt to my defense was wonderful.”

Ringer said that she was forced to deal with eating issues as a teenage dancer. Entering a physically demanding profession at a young age was difficult, she said, and she turned to food for comfort.

“It is a field where our bodies are important. As dancers, we are taught to try to be perfect in every way. I was 16 when I became a professional,” she said. “I don’t think I was prepared to cope with being in an adult performing world. I think my coping mechanisms turned into eating disorders and body-image issues.”

Over time, Ringer dealt with the pressures that contributed to her eating issues. She realized that in order to be a great dancer, she had to be healthy, not just thin.

“If you’re too thin, you really can’t do the job. You’re weak … and you can’t perform well,” she said.

As for the Times critic, Ringer said she is much more concerned about what the thousands of people who saw “The Nutcracker” thought of the performance than one man sitting in the audience taking notes.

“It is his opinion. He is a critic, and he’s paid to put his opinion in the paper. I know as a dancer that I am going to be criticized,” Ringer said. “I know there were 2,000 people probably out there. He got to put his opinion in the paper, but everybody else had a different opinion.”

Contacted by a TODAY producer, a spokesperson for the New York Times said its critics’ reviews speak for themselves.

[From MSNBC]

If you watch the video, there’s a clip of her performing in costume – she looks fine. In fact, it’s refreshing to see a successful ballerina who doesn’t look like she would break like a twig if a stiff wind blew through. She’s still very slender, and I would guess that she’s still underweight for her height, but she looks healthy. The NYT critic is a friggin’ douche.

Screencaps courtesy of Today.

It was exactly a week ago when we found out that Josh Duhamel had been kicked off of a plane for refusing to turn off his Blackberry, and for heckling a stewardess or something. Basically, he was a jagoff. In the immediate aftermath, Josh’s publicist only offered an insincere-sounding apology. Then, a few days later, Josh told Access Hollywood that he learned his “lesson” and was now “good”. Once again, there was the general feeling of insincerity, like Josh just didn’t want to be bothered explaining himself or the situation. Now, a week later, he seems to realize that he actually needs to sit down and give an interview about it – and coincidentally, he’s also promoting some charity work he’s doing. Smart. That’s why Hollywood publicists get the big bucks:

‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’ star Josh Duhamel had a bit of his own transforming experience last week when he was asked to leave a flight from New York to Kentucky after reportedly ignoring a flight attendant’s request to turn his BlackBerry off. The star exclusively tells ET, “I messed up, and I feel like an idiot because of it.”

“It’s just one of those situations that you wish you could have back,” he explains. “I meant no disrespect to the crew or the flight attendant or any of the people that were on the plane. I didn’t mean to further delay them. …You know, that’s just not the person I try to be, and I just wanted a chance to apologize to the people that were affected by it.”

Josh adds with a laugh, “The lesson that I learned is that I probably need to check myself into ‘BlackBerries Anonymous.’”

This holiday season (and, of course, year-round), Josh is trying to make a difference and hopes people will consider the American Red Cross and their 2010 Holiday Giving Campaign, “Gifts that Save the Day.”

“Considering the economic downturn, and there’s a lot people out there that are struggling right now, it’s not an easy time for a lot of people — and it’s not the most easy time to give — but this is the time when people most need it,” he explains.

After the devastating earthquake in Haiti, Josh helped organize a youth run that raised more than $100,000 in Santa Monica, CA. He says that the flooding in North Dakota about five years ago sparked his interest in getting more involved with the Red Cross.
“I felt like I really wanted to do something,” he says. “What can I do? How can I help make the biggest impact? And it was through the Red Cross.”

The 38-year-old star plans to spend the holidays along with wife Fergie with his family, noting, “We switch off every year. Last year Christmas was at Ferg’s house, this year it’s at my place. … We just plan it so that we’re spending time with both families.”

Josh confirms that they plan to renew their wedding vows on their upcoming second anniversary in January, saying, “It’s fun, and it’s a good excuse to get family and friends together and throw a party.” In the meantime, both stars remain busy, but Josh says he enjoys catching his significant other on stage with the Black Eyed Peas whenever he can.

“I love watching the show and I love watching her perform,” he gushes. “I’m impressed by her and her talent. I’m not afraid to admit it — I’m a fan.”

Talking a little ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon,’ which lands in theaters July 1, 2011, Josh says, “There’s nothing quite like being on the set of a Michael Bay movie because it’s a spectacle every day. I feel like a tiny cog in a giant machine when I’m there, but it’s pretty fun to be a part of. … I’m excited to see how it all turns out.”

[From Entertainment Tonight]

Wow, he killed a lot of birds with one interview, right? Apology for being a jag? Check. Charity promotion so he looks like a decent guy? Check. Promoting the strength of his marriage after that affair with the stripper? Check. A little early promotion on Transformers 3? Check. Whatever, he sounds kind of sorry. I’m over it. He’s not important enough to be mad at.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Here are some additional photos from last night’s Paris Megamind premiere (I covered the first photos last night). I also found out what designers Brad and Angelina were wearing – Brad’s baggy leather pants are Julius Sheep (?) and Angelina’s outfit (including the old lady harem pants with an old-school zippered taper) was L’Agence.

In other Jolie news, these Bosnian women’s groups are really out for Jolie blood – a group has issued yet another public statement about how awful it is that Angelina is making a movie about something that she’s not making a movie about in reality. The Women Victims of War (an association for Bosnian rape victims) sent out this statement:

“Angelina Jolie’s ignorant attitude towards victims says enough about the scenario and gives us the right to continue having doubts about it.”

“We have insisted to meet Angelina Jolie since we don’t want to be wrongly presented in the world . . . Our voices are worthwhile and we should have got much more respect.”

“Angelina made a big mistake. We feel that she did not act like a real UNHCR ambassador and we believe that she has no more credibility to remain the ambassador.”

[WVW Statement via HuffPo]

Jesus Christ. She’s not making a movie about rape! I’ll admit, I’m not jazzed about this movie whatsoever (I’m still a card-carrying Brangeloonie, chill out), but my ambivalence is mostly about my desire to see Angelina do better work as an actress – she directed (and wrote) this film instead of signing on to Gravity for a more than $20 million paycheck. This Bosnian story seems like it’s going to be boring, and probably dripping in sanctimony, considering Angelina considers her work as a writer/director “the voice” of the Bosnian people. Protest that, haters. Don’t go on and on and on about a piece of propaganda that was reported and denied by everyone involved in the project, and by the Bosnian government, who got to read the script. I think Angelina can tend towards to the sanctimonious, but I really, really doubt she’s so dumb (or “ignorant”) as to make a film glorifying rape or rapists. And to question her as a goodwill ambassador based on a piece of propaganda? How about this: I don’t this group has the credibility to accurately advocate for rape victims.

Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame.

Yesterday, I put this story in the links from The Frisky – apparently, Bosnian activists are still pissed off at Angelina Jolie about the whole “the screenplay is about a rape victim falling in love with her rapist” thing. Except Jolie’s script isn’t about that, and she and producers have let the government and various rape-victim advocacy groups read the script to see for themselves. But I guess some people didn’t hear the news or they didn’t care or they just wanted some attention for their cause, because the Association of Women Victims of War wrote an open letter to Angelina, in which they basically said she was raping all of them personally. They accuse her of trying to “falsify the historic truth about the crimes of mass gang rapes of Bosnian women” and:

“We understand [“Untitled Love Story”] will be based upon a “loving surrender” of Bosnian women to their rapists and representatives of a country which planned, directed and commanded the execution of all of the crimes committed, including the crimes of sexual abuse which was to serve as a means of denationalizing and dehumanizing the victims. … It would be as if you were trying to make a movie using the same screenplay and instead of a Serbian male have a Taliban one, and instead of a Bosnian woman an American one.”

[Letter excerpt, courtesy of The Frisky]

Angelina responded personally, and told the women that she “is deeply sensitive to the suffering experienced by the members of your associations and I would never trivialize what they went through.” She also offered to meet with them: “I hope that the meeting will allow us to clarify any understandings concerning the film that you may have as a result of the misinformation carried by the media.” Now Angelina is pulling a big “Whatever, bitches, this isn’t worth the trouble.” That’s right – after all of that commotion, Angelina is pulling out of her planned 10-day film shoot in Bosnia, choosing to send her crew down to Bosnia for a few days (probably to film some basic exteriors with a second unit director, that would be my guess) and she will complete her film in Hungary, where she’s been filming the whole time:

Angelina Jolie has cut short the shooting of her first movie in Bosnia, her producer said, after rumors that it portrayed a relationship between a rapist and his victim sparked protests from women assaulted during the Bosnian War.

Jolie had originally planned to shoot scenes for her movie for about ten days in Bosnia, but now her crew will film the scenes in just three or four days, said Edin Sarkic, Jolie’s Bosnian producer. Jolie herself will only briefly visit the set, he said.

The change of plans came after rumors surrounding the movie’s storyline angered an association of women raped during the war in Bosnia who heard the film was about a rape victim falling in love with her rapist. They pressured city officials to withdraw Jolie’s filming permit in October. The rumors proved to be untrue, but still cast a shadow on the project.

Jolie’s permit was reissued three days later, but Sarkic said she decided to film some of the scenes originally planned for Bosnia in Hungary instead. Jolie has exchanged letters with the women’s association and has said she plans to meet with them when she arrives in Bosnia for her short visit.

The actress said she has great respect for the work of the women’s association and would “like the opportunity to speak with them to personally clear up any misunderstandings about this project.”

Jolie’s movie is about a Serb man and Bosnian Muslim woman who fall in love and get separated during the war.

Mass rape was a taboo topic in the immediate aftermath of the country’s 1992-95 war between Serb and Bosnian Muslim forces but since then victims have formed a group to campaign for their rights, which has become one of the country’s most powerful lobbies.

[From Huffington Post]

On one side, I’m kind of disappointed that Angelina didn’t travel to Bosnia to speak to these women directly, creating some kind of teachable moment about rape and war crimes and making critical judgments by reading something other than anti-Jolie propaganda. On the other side, I can see why Angelina is just like “Whatever, let them think whatever they want, I need to finish this up with as little controversy and expense as possible.”

Pics courtesy of WENN.

Last week there was a big controversy over the fact that Whoopi and Joy walked off The View while Bill O’Reilly was a guest. The topic was the proposed “Mosque at Ground Zero,” (which is neither a mosque nor is it at ‘Ground Zero’ but whatever) and when the shouting started happening and Bill said “Muslims killed us on 9/11” Whoopi and Joy both hightailed it out of there, leaving Barbara Walters and the rest of the panel in a tizzy. On Monday’s View, Joy and Whoopi spoke out about the incident. O’Reilly also apologized on his show, adding that it was everyone else’s fault for not understanding that he meant something that he didn’t specifically say. He said “I assumed that most people would be intelligent enough to know that I was saying ‘radical Islamists attacked us’.”

Both Whoopi and Joy said on The View’s postmortem that they’re glad they walked off. Whoopi claimed that she was about to go off on Bill and needed to leave while Joy explained that she was “enraged.” Barbara noted that Bill had played them both and that he got a huge kick out of it. Here’s Radar Online’s recap, where you can also watch a video clip.

On Monday, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar finally had their chance to defend walking off the set of The View last Thursday in response to guest Bill O’Reilly’s controversial remarks about Muslims being behind 9/11.

Since the show last Friday was pre-taped prior to the walkout, this was their first chance to publicly address the controversy on their own show.

“On this show we always speak about standing up to bigotry, so I stood up,” Behar said.

“I had reached my saturation point,” Goldberg added. “I had enough. As soon as I said the B word, I knew to get up and leave. Because I knew what was coming next. I was going to cuss him out.”

As RadarOnline.com has previously reported, on The View last Thursday, O’Reilly said, “The Muslims killed us on 9-11.” Shortly afterward, an enraged Behar stormed off the set; Goldberg quickly followed her. The other ladies of the panel stayed on, and Barbara Walters scolded her colleagues for walking off.

Monday, Goldberg made no apologies; she said that O’Reilly needed to be more cautious in his statements because it’s a volatile time. “I”m glad that I left,” she said.

Walters countered that the country needs conversations without yelling and walking off. “You don’t walk out of your own home,” Walters chided her colleagues. “We’re used to Bill O’Reilly. He loves this. He loves to pull your chain. He loves to get you angry. This is just what he wanted.”

Responding to some critics who questioned if the entire scenerio was staged in a ploy to get ratings, Sherri Shepherd adamantly stated that it was not staged and that O’Reilly seemed “energized” during a commercial break. He promised to show the clip on his Fox show, The O’Reilly Factor, and said it would help the ratings for The View, Shepherd said.

Shepherd said that Walters told O’Reilly: “We’ve been doing fine without you trying to make our ratings.”

Shepherd added, “He knew what he was doing.”

The notoriously conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck said her staying didn’t mean she agreed with O’Reilly. Hasselbeck stressed that the terrorists killed us in the 2001 attacks.

Behar also brought up the Henry Fonda movie 12 Angry Men, cited the bigoted character played by Lee J. Cobb. She pointed out that the other jurors stood up to him. “I believe that was what I had to do,” Behar said.

“We are supposed to be civilized,” Goldberg said. “I know that had I stayed there, for me at least, it would have gotten worse. … He was so enraging and so disrespectful.”

“Bill loves to pull your chains,” Walters said.

Behar admitted her surprise at all the attention the incident attracted, saying, “Two girl comedians walk off in the face of a bully, and it gets to be all over the world. Interesting.”

During the interview with O’Reilly last Thursday, both Goldberg and Behar returned to the set to finish the interview after O’Reilly -prompted by Walters- apologized if he offended anyone by his comments.

[From Radar Online]

Whoopi and Joy interview people for a living, they’ve been doing it for years, and they should be able to handle some ass who is known for being incendiary without getting all offended and storming off. Bill needled the crap out of them and he got the response he was looking for. The fact that they still can’t see that they reacted just as he hoped they would just serves to show why they would leave in the first place. I don’t like Bill O’Reilly and I don’t agree with his point whatsoever, but everyone knows how he is. If they don’t want to deal with his behavior they shouldn’t have him on the show.

Joy also talked about this on her CNN show yesterday. I like what her experts have to say about the issue. Here’s video of that.

Since you enjoyed yesterday’s Hilary Swank fashion post so much, here’s another one – Hilary wore Herve Leger on Tuesday night, to yet another screening of her film, Conviction. Though I don’t really love the dress, I applaud Hilary for somehow making vertical horizontal stripes look interesting and cute and even thinning. Hilary has a fashion problem, though. Her face is so angular, and her body is so tight – if she wears something super-structured, she fails, but if she wears something too loose and flowy, she fails too, I think. Anyway, I don’t hate or love the dress. It’s just there.

Meanwhile, Hilary is making some big news with this film. She just got a gift from publicity heaven – she’s now on Gloria Allred’s sh-tlist. And Ted Casablanca is asking – hand to God – if Hilary is a “thoughtless hag”. I kid you not. Here’s what is going down:

Hilary Swank: two-time Oscar winner…and thoughtless hag? The actress’s reputation is under attack today by none other than Gloria Allred, who is shocked—shocked!—that Swank didn’t even touch base with one of the real-life inspirations for her upcoming film, Conviction.

So what exactly is Allred’s latest beef? Seems Allred’s panties are in a bunch because she believes the actress should have had the courtesy to ring up the family of Katharina Brow, whose grisly killing is at the center of Conviction.

“We don’t think the burden should be on the murder victim’s family members on how to get in touch with Hollywood upon reading the murder victim’s going to be in a film,” said Allred. “The film’s producers, including Ms. Swank [who's listed as an executive producer] have never bothered to contact this family in the 10 years this film was made.”

Allred made the comments at a press conference today, two days before the film hits theaters, flanked by Brow’s son and daughter.

“This family has gone through a lot of pain and there’s no reason to feel they should suffer more,” said Allred. “They’re not going to profit from this film. If we’re talking about a murder we need to reach out to murder victims’ families. As far as I’m concerned that should be the new principle in Hollywood.”

“My mother was not just a name and was not and is not a person who should be used as a line in the script or just a way to make a profit in the entertainment industry,” Melrose Brow added. “She was just a human being and a member of our family.”

Allred says she plans on sending a letter to Swank via her agent (“because that’s the only way we know how to contact her”) on behalf of Brow’s now grown-up children, Charlie and Melrose, demanding a face-to-face meeting.

“They need and deserve to receive answers to many questions they have,” said Allred, adding that she wants the family to get a private screening to avoid having to re-live the incident in a theater surrounded by the popcorn-munching masses.

Specifically, the family wants to know: if their mom’s murder be seen on screen; how will she be depicted (as “the loving mother and grandmother that she was?”) and whether the filmmakers will earmark any of the profits to find the real killer.

While the public has yet to see Conviction, there have been several advanced screenings, so perhaps we here at E! can try and help clear up at least one mystery for the family.

Conviction opens in Brow’s home and we see details of the crime scene, specifically shots of blood, but viewers don’t see the actual slaying. At that point, the movie flashes forward two years to Kenneth Waters (Sam Rockwell), the man wrongly accused of the murder. Swank plays his sister, Betty Anne Waters, who eventually gets a law degree and helps prove her sibling’s innocence.

It’s that story that’s the focus of the movie and not the Brows’ tribulations, though during the end credits, a title card notes that the real killer has yet to be found. So far, reps for Swank and Fox Searchlight, the studio distributing Conviction, have decided not to take Allred’s bait.

[From E! New]

I’m a big believer in “Son of Sam” laws, which are basically laws that ensure that violent criminals cannot in any way profit from their crimes. Like, someone convicted of murder can’t write a book from prison and have it published for profit. However, that doesn’t really seem like the case here – this film is about a man’s wrongful conviction of the murder, not about the murder victim. Maybe Hilary should have met with the victim’s family – but the man who sat in prison for a crime he didn’t commit is a victim too, Ms. Allred. Team Hilary on this one.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Do you know how much I hate covering anything to do with The View? SO MUCH. But CB sent me this, and I suppose people will be talking about it. Bill O’Reilly came on The View this morning, and I guess they were talking about Obama’s low poll numbers and then they got to polling numbers for what America thinks about the “Ground Zero Mosque” and then sh-t gets all shouty and hysterical. After Bill says “Muslims killed us on nine-eleven” Joy Behar gets up and says something about not engaging in this sh-t while Whoopi is shouting about extremists. Then Whoopi gets up with Joy and they both walk off the stage. Barbara then gets her lady drawers in a twist and says that we should all be able to talk about this sh-t without having people disengage or whatever.

I have mixed emotions. Obviously, Bill was trying to get the ladies riled up, and he was much more animated and blowhardy than he would have been on, say, The Daily Show. That being said, he threw out a relatively easy one (compared to other bullsh-t he could have said) and Whoopi and Joy took the bait like morons. Bill will get extra coverage, blah, blah, blah, so that makes him smart, I guess.

But in defense of Whoopi and Joy: I do this too. I would much rather disengage from some heated argument than sit there and try to shout my point. I realize they walked away for different reasons, and it might have even been preplanned, but I’m just saying, I get it. When it comes to these stupid hot-button political issues, for the most part I’m not interested in shouting my point of view to whoever disagrees with me. Is it maturity? Is it a heightened fight-or-flight instinct? Or it my smug sense of superiority? I don’t know. I just know I don’t care enough to shout about it. And if you shout at me about something, I’m never going to agree with you anyway.

Will.I.Am showed up at the MTV Video Awards’ pre-show in “blackface.” Sort of. Is it weird that when I saw these photos, my first reaction wasn’t “I’m so offended” but actually “Oh, I bet he was going for a consistent fashion statement – black jacket, black makeup, it makes the glasses pop.” Do you think Will did it without really knowing he would offend people? That he was just going for a “look” rather than a political statement? Or do you think he knew what he was doing and was trying to get attention? Eh.

Will.I.am has caused controversy by attending 2010 MTV Video Music Awards in an “all black everything” ensemble. The Black Eyed Peas star wore black outfit from head to toe, literally, with his face painted dark.

Apparently learning that his choice of fashion style has offended some people, will.i.am quickly wrote on his Twitter to downplay the issue. He started his self-defense, “1st. just because I where all black including head mask as expression and emphasize my outfit, it shouldn’t be looked at as racial…”

“Let go of the past. there are far more important things 2 bark about. (Jobs, health, education) not a black man wearing all black everything,” he continued. “Are you guys serious? my outfit set ‘black people back 100 yrs’ choose your twits wisely. no education sets people back, no jobs, bad health.”

While some people slammed will.i.am, Lil Duval took it as a comedy. “I think will i am took a dip in the oil spill for that performance,” he posted on his own page, referring to the rapper’s “Check It Out” performance with Nicki Minaj. Duval later on added, “I’m a comedian people so if u get upset u look real stupid.”

Blackface first gained popularity during the 19th century and typically promotes racist stereotypes toward African Americans. Earlier this year, Estelle also came under fire for using black paint to cover her body and face in “Freak” music video. At that time, she responded to the controversy, saying “I’m black, so how do I do blackface? Missy [Elliott] did the same thing [with her video]. She’s a B***h. I refuse to defend it, I didn’t put any white ring around my mouth – never that.”

[From Ace Showbiz]

Yes, I can see how some people would be offended, and I understand that point of view. But I can totally see how Will would do it just thinking about the fashion and styling aspect of it, and how he’s not making a comment about race whatsoever. Eh. Also, does blackface always equal racism? Even when it’s done to make political or fashion statements? Weird.

Here’s Will.I.am performing with Nicki Minaj on the pre-show:

Stephen Dorff has gotten a second chance at having a solid career. He’s the lead in Sofia Coppola’s new film, Somewhere (costarring cutie Elle Fanning), and Dorff is being sent out on the promotional trail where, I think it’s safe to say, he’s back to being really, really hot. Maybe he was always hot. But give him a good film with good buzz, and suddenly things are looking up, right? Anyway, Dorff covers the New York Times’ Fall Fashion something or other. The photos are gorgeous, and the interview is lovely:

Back in 1994, in the afterglow of his first big role — playing the doomed fifth Beatle, Stuart Sutcliffe, in “Backbeat” — Stephen Dorff did what any self-respecting young actor might do when the checks start coming in. He moved into the Chateau Marmont.

“I had some money and I didn’t have a place to live,” Dorff, now 37, explained during a recent stopover in Manhattan. “So I said, ‘You know what? I’m checking into the Chateau.’ ”

He toasted his 21st birthday with a “wild party” in one of the four bungalows. The premiere bash for “Backbeat” was held in its famous garden, where 700 guests, including Pia Zadora, Tori Spelling and Keith Richards, jockeyed for chicken skewers and face time with the newly minted star. Life at the Chateau was grand — for a while.

“It got to the point where my business manager called and said, ‘Stephen, you need to take a movie or get a job, ’cause you’re out of money.’ And I said, ‘O.K., I guess I’m moving out.’ ”

Dorff did move out and he did get jobs, good ones: putting on a blond wig as Candy Darling in “I Shot Andy Warhol,” taking the lead in John Waters’s “Cecil B. DeMented” and sprouting fangs as the vampire Deacon Frost in the B-movie semi-blockbuster “Blade,” a role that earned him a 1999 MTV Movie Award for Best Villain. The 2000s saw him lighting up the Gawkersphere with an impressive roster of girlfriends (from Milla Jovovich to Pamela Anderson), an alleged death threat left on a rival’s answering machine and a contretemps with Jeremy Piven on the men’s-room line at Bungalow 8. (Piven: “You’re a has-been!” Dorff: “You’re only on TV! Cable TV!”)

It was bad-boy time, but, still, there were highlights: Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center,” the prison-yard drama “Felon” and Michael Mann’s gangster epic, “Public Enemies.”

Then last year Dorff found himself checking back into the Chateau Marmont, that fortresslike retreat above Sunset Boulevard where Hollywood stars — and would-be stars — go to hide out in plain sight. The occasion was Sofia Coppola’s latest movie, “Somewhere,” which required Dorff to hole up in Room 69 for three weeks while he tackled the role of Johnny Marco, an actor whose career is on cruise control while his life is veering into a ditch. If he’s not tooling around aimlessly in his Ferrari F430, he’s in his suite at the Chateau enjoying in-room pole-dancing performances by a pair of extremely dexterous blonde twins. Johnny’s tabloid-worthy torpor is broken only by the unexpected arrival of his 11-year-old daughter from a broken marriage, Cleo (the luminously cute Elle Fanning). What ensues is the most inspired father-daughter buddy movie since “Paper Moon,” shot through with the freeway-bound ennui of “Play It as It Lays.” It forms a kind of diptych with Coppola’s much-loved “Lost in Translation”: disaffected actor, younger female, hotel, bittersweet moments strung together with precise calibration.

In person, Dorff is resplendently disheveled in a green tank top. He retains the compact and pugnacious aura of a terrier, an effect heightened by glinting, buff-colored eyes and an upturned nose.

“It was the ultimate role at the ultimate time,” he says of Johnny Marco, the character Coppola wrote with him in mind. “I went through a period where I just didn’t get much interesting work. I felt like I didn’t want to do it anymore. And then, out of nowhere, I get this gift.”

The feeling was compounded by the loss of his mother, Nancy, to cancer in 2008. (The actor’s father, the songwriter Steve Dorff, composed “Every Which Way but Loose,” and Dorff grew up around L.A.).

“She always wanted me to play a father, to grow up in film. I know she had something to do with this one.” Among Dorff’s many tattoos — including the number 73, the year of his birth — is one that simply reads NANCY.

The actor’s return to the Chateau isn’t so much a comeback as it is a homecoming — to the edgy, eye-grabbing roles Dorff embraced in the heady period of his first success. Coppola’s camera lingers on him as he shuffles along in Red Wing boots, smokes Camel Lights down to the filters and drains one Corona after another. Dorff’s Johnny Marco is all eye bags, forehead creases, three-day scruff and the occasional mysterious facial abrasion. What could be his motto appears on an Ed Ruscha print that Dorff sourced himself and propped up in Johnny’s room: COLD BEER BEAUTIFUL GIRLS. (He counts Ruscha as a friend and “the epitome of cool.”)

“Stephen had to carry the whole thing,” says Coppola, who has known Dorff since the “Backbeat” era. “And he’s not hiding behind a big performance. You always see pictures of him at these parties, but his persona is really different — a serious actor and a sweet guy.”

Dorff had just returned from Coppola’s rented villa in Tuscany, where he happily played uncle to her 3-year-old daughter, Romy. Wife and kids are clearly on his mind. But are they on the way? Not quite, although Coppola has issued “an age cutoff” for his future girlfriends. Despite all the talk of growing up, à la Johnny Marco, Dorff says no one is waiting for him back at his Malibu beach pad — just his vintage guitars and keyboards. He’s been swept up in next year’s projects, playing the porn star Dick Shadow in the Adam Sandler-penned “Born to Be a Star” and starring with Mickey Rourke in Tarsem Singh’s “Immortals,” which he describes as “ ‘Gladiator’ meets ‘300.’ ”

Even so, Dorff is still savoring his latest stay at the Chateau, as if wishing he could check out anytime he likes but never leave. “I told Sofia, ‘If we ever get a chance to work again, just make the shoot longer.’ I was so happy on this movie. I wanted it to last forever.”

[From The New York Times]

An “age cutoff” for girlfriends? Meaning they can’t be older than a certain age or they can’t be younger than a certain age? I’m hoping the former.

Meanwhile, this film, Somewhere, has a big controversy attached to it now. Even though critics were mostly impressed with Somewhere when it premiered at Venice, those same critics – especially in Italy – are now questioning whether it deserved to take home the Venice Film Festival’s top prize, the Golden Lion for Best Film. You see, Sofia Coppola’s ex-boyfriend and good friend Quentin Tarantino was the president of VFF’s jury, and SHOCK – most of the winners in Venice were people Tarantino has personal relationships with. Movieline has the whole story here, including this statement by QT: “I wasn’t going to let anything like that affect me at all. I was just going to literally respond to the film. There was no me steering any direction. It enchanted us from the first. Being her friend didn’t affect me or make me sway the jury in any way. The other members of the jury don’t know her at all. They just loved the film. We kept coming back to it, as one of us said, because ‘it’s a great f*cking movie,” all right?’” Ooh, Mila Kunis won a prize for Black Swan too! Nice. Vincent Gallo won Best Actor though. Eyeroll.

Photos courtesy of The NYT & The Fashion Spot.

Angelina Jolie is still in Pakistan, doing press on behalf of the UNHCR and meeting with refugees and Pakistani officials and NGOs. Today, Jolie did something she rarely does in her capacity as UNHCR goodwill ambassador – she gave a press conference on site, and she entered the hot-button political arena in a big way. According to mulitple news sources who covered Jolie’s press conference, she outright condemned the Florida preacher’s threat/promise to burn a Koran (Quran or Qu’ran) on the anniversary of September 11th. Pastor Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center, has become a national and international figure after making the threat to burn the Koran, earning condemnations from Pres. Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, General Petraeus and General Odierno, all of whom argue that the act could and will endanger the lives of soldiers and further alienate Muslims around the world.

Angelina Jolie on Wednesday condemned a Florida church’s threat to burn copies of the Muslim holy book to mark the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. The 35-year-old actress spoke out against the proposed burning during a trip to Pakistan to raise awareness about the floods that have devastated the largely Muslim country over the last six weeks. She visited in her capacity as a goodwill ambassador for the U.N.’s refugee agency.

Jolie’s criticism echoed that of top U.S. officials, who have described the church’s plan as a disgraceful act and have even warned that it could endanger U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Americans worldwide.

“I have hardly the words that somebody would do that to somebody’s religious book,” Jolie told reporters in Islamabad after visiting refugees camps in northwestern Pakistan — one of the areas of the country hit hardest by the floods.

The Christian minister organizing the Quran burning, Pastor Terry Jones, has said he plans to go ahead in spite of concerns. He is part of the Dove World Outreach Center, a tiny, evangelical Christian church in Gainesville, Florida, with an anti-Islam philosophy.
The issue has not gotten much attention in Pakistan, where officials and residents have been trying to cope with the devastation caused by floods that first hit the country at the end of July following extremely heavy monsoon rains. The floodwaters have killed more than 1,700 people and have affected over 18 million others.

“I was shocked especially by how high the floodwaters went,” said Jolie, who wore a long dress and covered her hair with a black scarf in keeping with local Muslim custom. “In some of the people’s houses, it was nine feet (three meters) high.”

U.N. officials have expressed hope that Jolie’s visit would help spark the fundraising campaign to help Pakistan, which has stalled in recent days. The U.N. issued an appeal for $460 million in emergency funds on Aug. 11, but only $294 million, or 64 percent, has been received so far even though it is one of the worst natural disasters in recent years.

“There’s lots of speculation about why this one has not gotten the attention it deserves,” Jolie said. “Even all of the wonderful coverage … is not getting the response that usually it’s able to get.”

[From NPR]

That’s interesting that Angelina came out against so strongly – usually, she moderates her comments on some of the more controversial subjects, and I’ve always suspected she was a lot more politically conservative than most people believe. But I agree with her comments, as I hope most people will.

Angelina on Sept. 8, 2010. Credit: WENN.