SHANTERTAINMENT

Vanity Bore

So after last year's Tom Ford debacle of a cover, I can understand that the Hollywood edition of Vanity Fair wanted to get back to basics this year. But there are basics, and then there is totally average and boring. If the goal was to have no criticism of the cover -- mission accomplished! Because the cover is like camoflauge on a magazine rack -- something you'd never look at on purpose.

In a nutshell the cover is four comedic actors -- four! -- in tuxes. Tuxes.  These four actors are not hot, not particularly interesting this year, as opposed to other years, and definitely not surprising to see together (Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Jack Black, Chris Rock.) When you fold out the rest of the tri-fold cover you get....set. Oh there are some penguins off in the corner to balance the tuxes. So, your thinking, it must be a whole comedy theme this year!  Tribute to the comedians! You'd be wrong. There is nothing on the inside of this magazine (more on that crap later) that would mirror the outside of this magazine. But back to the tri-fold cover. Last year with Scarlett's ass you could almost convince me it was a fold out for a reason. But if there is any value in the tri-fold cover to anyone but the Donna Karan marketing dept., I can't see it. (And  frankly, Donna, if I purchased the inside of the very special Hollywood cover and got Ben, Jack, Owen and Chris, I'd ask for a refund.)

At least the inside portfolio won't disappoint, right? Wrong. First off, I should say, I'm not afraid of change. I like it and and understand we need it sometimes. But why are you fixing what isn't broken? The magazine replaced the traditional portfolio, where they christen and celebrate the people in Hollywood who matter right now, with a fake film noir photo shoot. Complete with lame background story. Yes, the pictures are beautiful -- but all in the same look, so boring. Yes, there are some random groupings of celebrities -- but without any context about why its interesting to see them together. Yes, there are some exciting new faces -- but from last year (Amy Adams?? A day late and a dollar short on that one.) So the inside is disappointing too.

At least there are some amazing articles, you are thinking. And that's where I admit, I haven't actually read any of the magazine yet. But that's not the point! The Hollywood issue is supposed to be pure eye candy. Instead I'm looking forward to the articles!

Obviously none of this would be so disappointing if I didn't genuinely love the Hollywood issue. The covers and portfolios have traditionally been amazing. And the recent plunge in quality is frustrating. Preceding this year's portfolio with some of the greatest hits of previous years only served to make me more nostalgic for the past. I may have actually spent more time perusing the Gap spread (Chris O'Donnell!) than the rest of the magazine.

I guess I should be grateful that it's over. Collectibles just gather dust anyway.

But seriously -- JACK BLACK! What the fuck!

As If Tom Ford Wasn't Bad Enough

George Clooney had better watch himself -- last month's Jamie Foxx is this month's Jamie Foxx, if you know what I mean. And Clooney -- though it isn't party and ladies and rap star bound -- could become that "here I am again doing my holier than thou" schtick soon enough. Case in point, the current Vanity Fair cover. I know I know, why do I even get it? There are good articles, I swear. But between the Paris Hilton and the Teri Hatcher and this, the covers ain't what they used to be. So on the current Vanity Fair George sits looking like the cat that ate the canary under a headline stating "A New American Revolution." Gag. But wait -- this is totally deal-able. What makes it absolutely god awful is that hovering above George, in an ethereal green goddess outfit with a tiara of leaves is Julia Roberts. Yes, that's right -- Julia Roberts IS "Mother Nature." First of all, Julia Roberts is so annoying. She was getting almost Oprah-level annoying but smartly retired to a small fishing village with her twins and camera man for a year and we haven't had to see her, so she's not Oprah. But she's still close. And then this, this outfit and assembly (did I mention they are beside Al Gore and a Kennedy Junior?) is both pretensious and totally unnecessary.  And it makes me want to use aerosol hair spray, egg the hybrids on my block and stop recycling forever just so I can stick it to Julia and George (who, by the way, I'm totally sure isn't powering the pool outside his Lake Cuomo villa with solar energy or whatever they use.)

Us Uncoded

I totally just realized something! You know when magazines say that someone was dress all "cazh"...well I didn't know what that meant. I thought it was like some fancy word that was pronounced "kazaa".  Well duh, I just finally got it -- its like caz...ual. short for casual? duh! why didn't any of you tell me?? I feel so enlightened.

Have You Ever Seen A Worse Photo In Your Life?

There is nothing I can say that will make picture any funnier. From any angle, it's both genius and disturbing. The kind of thing where they obviously had 50 better ones but waited...waited...waited until it was just this bad. Kudos Us, no more baby bump, but the humiliation is not close to over.

Leave the Girl Alone

Maybe she's pregnant, maybe she's not, but either way, is having a doctor quoted as saying, "she just looks overweight to me," in any way close to what Jesus would do? Come on Us Weekly, let it go until she either pops out a kid or shows her abs to us on purpose again. Don't you need a few more reporters on Nich Lachey's ass to determine who he's doing this week? Kristen Cavalleri? Miss Kentucky? Cheryl the Dancer? Matt Leinart? We're dying of suspense over here.

You Guys Are In So Much Trouble

I kept meaning to include this so now it's old news...but how much do you love the press release issued by Trey Parker and Matt Stone after Isaac Hayes quit South Park for "religious reasons"? They've been shadily screwed by corporate America refusing to reair the scientology episode, and then Chef hits the bricks. This is enough to make me start watching South Park again, almost. Hope they are looking over their shoulders, Cruise has got to be close by.  You can watch the Cruise episode here...for now.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year wa r for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!

-Trey Parker and Matt Stone, servants of the dark lord Xenu

For a pretty interesting look inside scientology, this story in Rolling Stone is good. But I warn you, it's long. (Hard copy version is in the issue with the shirtless Flying Tomato on the cover -- ew. Was that necessary??)

More Vanity Fair Commentary

I realize that the list of people that care enough about commentary on the latest issue of Vanity Fair is short, if it exists at all. However I love it when I'm not alone in my opinions. So if you are interested check out this article at Fametracker.

Now I Know

Celebrity magazines, like soaps, are truly a great way to learn things. Here are some things I picked up from the latest issue of Us Weekly:

• Nicolas Cage looks like a perverted high school teacher with a mustache
• Having a long-distance love affair with a younger professional breakdancer seems like a good idea at the time.
• Celine Dion + Husband Rene = Still Creepy
• Jennifer Garner, when left to her own devices, is a terrible dresser who's not that hot.
• Nothing helps take off the baby weight like a husband who's gone back to visiting hookers.
• Anna Kournikova bought four bags of green apples. FOUR BAGS -- like big Jewel bags not plastic fruit bags. I didn't learn anything from this, it just seems like a lot of apples to me.
• Pacey has still got it.
• Being Mariah Carey rules -- she got to turn Jessica Simpson and Lindsay Lohan away from her post-grammy party.
• I take back all my hatred for Scott Stapp (but not Creed) -- this guy knows how to party!
• The difference between 'hot' and 'not' is exactly 45 lbs. on Jared Leto.

Tom Ford Destroys Hollywood

Every year I look so forward to the annual Vanity Fair Hollywood issue. I love it in a way I can't really explain. The beautiful pictures. The declarative titles (like The Chameleon or The Boy Next Door.) The short, pithy profiles that end with sentences like "have your people contact his," "As normal as anything he does, anyway," and "he clearly knows how to sit on a horse" (credit for all -- 2001 issue). I've got every Hollywood issue dating back to 1995, and when I feel crazy I go into the files and gingerly look at the pretty pretty pictures.

Then Tom Ford decided to turn it into porn.

First of all -- why would Tom Ford even be included in the Vanity Fair discussion of Hollywood??? He has no place at the table.

THEN he PUTS HIMSELF ON THE COVER!! Of the Hollywood issue!Not the fashion designer issue or the inflated ego issue -- the Hollywood issue.

So the story goes that there were supposed to be three naked actresses on the cover -- Keira Knightley, Scarlett Johansson and Rachel McAdams, but Rachel got shy and decided against it at the last minute (I believe this story to be true since Rachel McAdams is obviously very smart -- she's dating Ryan Gosling.)

But I don't care! That is no reason to put YOURSELF on the cover. Here's Tom's rationale:

"Three girls in a bed is a bedful of girls, but two girls in a bed are lesbians. At the end of the shoot, Annie asked me to slip into the picture as my contributor's photo,"

So anyway, then we see the photo, and yes the girls look hot and the fold out picture of Scarlett's ass doesn't bug me but its just tawdry. And it used to be beautiful.

It doesn't get better inside. The people included are fine.  But I am amazed at the number of nipples Tom felt he needed to include. (Why is a gay man so obsessed with breasts?) The third entry after Dakota Fanning (nipple free thank God but likely not by Tom's choice), and Peter Sarsgaard (in an I'll concede interesting photo in which he looks hot hanging in bondage ropes fully clothed), is Sienna Miller -- all teat. In and of itself, fine, but then we have to be assaulted by a nude anonymous woman flanking Jason Schwartzman (not timely Tom), a giant breast in the photo of a random plastic surgeon (Dis. Turbing.), and a very Playboy-esque (but not in a good way) Joy Bryant nude but shadowed. The whole portfolio closes with George Clooney surrounded by models in wet bras half in and out of water.

For those of you that don't know -- I'm totally not a prude. I think t&a is fine and any one of the artful shots above (plastic surgeon and Joy Bryant not included) could have been very cool on its own. But all together it seemed really tacky. REALLY tacky. So tacky that not even the extremely hot photo of Joaquin Phoenix could make up for it ... (OK it sort of did make up for it. As did Jake and Heath and Eric Bana looking hot. But not nude. I still hate it in theory)

Check out some of the photos here.