I’m rooting for Jef and Emily, but I’ve been through too many failed relationships on this darn show to get overly excited. The most interesting part of the ‘After the Final Rose,’ was the revelation that Arie flew to Emily’s hometown to have a conversation with her off-camera, but he left his journal on her doorstep instead of seeing her. Maynard didn’t read the journal, and Arie rightfully said she should have rejected it upon arrival instead of leading him to believe she’d read it. Maynard confessed she’s not good at rejecting people, and she should have been more blunt, because she now knows it would have helped him move on. Though I felt terrible for Arie, something tells me he’ll be the next Bachelor. As for whether Jef and Emily will actually tie the knot, the Jane Austen in me is holding out a shred of hope. To be continued . . . .
Many, if not all, of this summer’s presidential campaign ads are vehemently negative, highly critical, and somewhat sensationalistic. But are they misleading? And do viewers believe what they hear?
Interestingly enough, one of the blondes at Fox News (also known as Megyn Kelly) — a network often chided for its questionable fact-checking – recently accused both Obama and Romney of telling tales in their attack ads, screaming, “When [Obama and Romney] go to the ad campaigns, they’re completely negative! And and they lie! They lie!… Does truth matter?!”
One example of the ad-mud-slinging included Romney’s heavy-handed editing to make it look as if Obama insulted business owners by telling them they did not build their businesses on their own. Romney ‘s “you didn’t build that”attack is especially misleading, even in the midst of a markedly negative campaign. The Romney folks basically took an Obama speech in which he explained that infrastructure such as roads and bridges are necessary to build businesses, and cut out the part about the roads so that Obama’s message was changed to, “you didn’t build that business yourself.” Romney then put a salty business owner in one of his ads, who asked Obama why he was demonizing small business owners like himself.
In a Friday interview with WCTV-TV in Tallahassee, Obama explained: “What I said was together we build roads and we build bridges.” He added, “That’s the point I’ve made millions of times, and by the way, that’s a point Mr. Romney has made as well, so this is just a bogus issue.”
Taking quick action, the Obama camp cleverly shot back with an internet ad of their own: “Mitt will say anything.” The ad shows clips of his speech where he made the purported diss against business owners, refutes Romney’s mischaracterization, and then shows clips of a Romney speech containing a familiar refrain: you can’t really build businesses without roads and bridges (click here to view the ad).
The other, more widely known campaign ad controversy, is Obama’s attack on Romney’s reign at Bain Capital from 1992-2002. In spite of documentary evidence to the contrary, Romney maintains that Obama is all wrong about his status at Bain during the years in question, when the company conspicuously closed down U.S. businesses (e.g. GST Steel in Kansas City) in favor of jobs oversees. Romney has long claimed that he departed Bain in 1999, and therefore has nothing to do with Bain’s questionable behavior. He wants an apology from Obama. But Obama won’t apologize. The President maintains that Romney was at Bain from 1999 to 2002, relying in part on SEC filings for those years, which list Romney as sole shareholder, director, chief executive officer, and president (there is also a state disclosure firm showing that he earned $100,000 as a Bain executive during 2001 and 2002, in addition to his investment earnings).
Despite the controversy over this style of ads, sometimes it’s necessary. It’s time to ferret out some answers about the amorphous Mormon, his Bain exploits, his riches, and how much he pays in taxes. As long as Obama doesn’t frankenbite Romney’s speeches, I’d say it’s fine.
Though I appreciate HBO’s desire to save their writing staff’s reputation by calling it normal to sack nearly all of Sorkin’s writing staff for ‘The Newsroom,’ the truth is — it isn’t normal. It might be normal to replace a few writers, but if the rumors are true and the entire staff was overhauled, then they are likely restructuring in response to some harsh critics of the show. The business is brutal, and if the ratings don’t stand up to the network’s expectation, changes are made extremely fast. Plus, something tells me Aaron Sorkin is not an easy guy to deal with in the writer’s room, and his own personal standards as the show’s creator (and God of all entertainment writing) might have also contributed to HBO’s decision.
On advice for working moms:
I think that as hard as it is, that if you have something that you love outside of being a mother, you should definitely maintain it, because it makes you a better mother.
On how being a mother changed her opinion of her character, Betty Draper:
I try not to judge her. It’s like she’s a relative you are embarrassed about. I disagree with her a lot … I don’t think I’d be her friend, but I defend her fiercely when someone says something about her.
On Betty Draper’s influence on her as a mom:
Well, I certainly don’t take anything from Betty home. I have nothing in common with her when it comes mothering. I don’t see it as a burden or irritation. I feel very lucky and I feel like it was something that I was meant to do. I’m at the right age and the right time in my life where it’s just so much fun. And I don’t think Betty sees the fun in that … I think she sees it as an inconvenience.
On playing a mom from a different era:
At the same time we are so rigid and so worried about every little thing now. I had no idea how many warning labels are on kid’s stuff. Everything is warning, warning, warning. You just kind of do the best you can.
Here at The Dishmaster, I read a lot of interviews, and every so often a story is just ridiculous enough to sound off my red-flag alarm. Today’s story in question involves ‘The Newsroom’ star Jeff Daniels, and how he landed his coveted new role. When asked how he convinced writer Aaron Sorkin that he could shed his nice-guy persona for a mean guy role, Daniels said:
“I had to have a meeting with [Aaron Sorkin] at a hotel here in New York to convince him that I could be angry and I tried, you know, raising my voice, being rude to the waiter and I tried all these different things and I could tell he wasn’t buying it. So at some point, I just said, ‘Aaron’ and I reached across and I placed my hand on his head… I”m gonna do this to Jimmy and it’s not going to hurt. I promise. And I took Aaron’s head and I slammed it down into the table and he bounced back up and then I had the role!”
In short, there’s no way that happened.
Interviews with actors often run long, in hopes that journalists will get enough material to pick-and-choose what works best with their article. Though actors might think certain disclosures are the most interesting, they are often times incorrect. In the case of Joseph Gordon Levitt, it’s a tough call. Levitt objected to GQ Magazine’s coverage of his brother during their interview, specifically that GQ talked more about how his brother died than how he lived, and mistakenly said his death was related to drugs. I re-read the content in question, and I think Levitt’s sensitivity about the subject skewed his judgment. GQ barely addressed the subject, which is likely because after Levitt’s instruction they were probably paranoid about mentioning him at all. Furthermore, they referred to the drug overdose as “alleged,” and they mentioned his name in a positive context.