| | |  | Brad Pitt News & Gossip
|
|
| | Brad Pitt donated $100K to the Human Rights Campaign for this election cycle | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Considering Brad Pitt was paid $7 million for his super-idiotic Chanel No. 5 campaign, he must feel like he?s got some money burning a hole in his pocket. I mean, not that $7 million is that big of a deal to Brad ? he?s reportedly worth in excess of $200 million, last I heard. Still, it?s nice to get a sweet paycheck for something dumb like that Chanel thing. So Brad?s conscience was weighing on him and he decided to write a check to make it all better. Brad has donated $100,000 to the Human Rights Campaign for their campaign against state ballot initiatives in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington that would ban gay marriage.
A longtime proponent of marriage equality, Brad Pitt has put his money where his mouth is.
The actor has donated $100,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to support the organization’s efforts in campaigning for marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State.
“It’s unbelievable to me that people’s lives and relationships are literally being voted on in a matter of days,” Pitt, 48, wrote in an email to HRC members and supporters on Wednesday. “If you’re like me, you don’t want to have to ask yourself on the day after the election, what else could I have done?”
Chad Griffin, president of the country’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, praised Pitt for his support and his donation, saying that his money “delivers vital resources into these campaigns.” Adds Griffin: “We’re proud to be working with him as we show that fundamental fairness will win at the ballot box.”
Pitt, who confirmed his engagement to longtime partner Angelina Jolie in April 2012, spoke out in July 2011 after New York legalized same-sex marriage, praising the state but noted that there was still much work to be done.
“It is each American’s Constitutional right to marry the person they love,” he said at the time, “no matter what state they inhabit. No state should decide who can marry and who cannot.”
[From People Mag]
I heard a Democratic congressman from Minnesota say the other night that their state?s gay marriage ban was probably going to fail, and Pres. Obama actually came out for the Washington State ballot measure and encouraged Washington voters to vote yes on the referendum to allow gay marriage in the state. I do wonder when Brad gave the money ? it seems like it?s really late in the election cycle to donate this chunk of money, but it could be that the HRC made a direct appeal to their big donors because they needed extra funding for their GOTV work on election day. Or maybe Brad was just discouraged by the numbers and he was like, ?F?k that, I?m giving a hundred grand!? I really don?t know.
Photos courtesy of Chanel and Fame/Flynet.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Brad Pitt's second Chanel ad features same script, more chicks: still awful' | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
I?m including some of the press-kit images that Chanel sent us for Brad Pitt?s campaign. The black-and-white images are by Sam Taylor-Wood (Sam Taylor-Johnson, really), and the color images are by Mario Sorrenti. I prefer the ones in color ? Brad looks more like a dude who is slowly taking off his tuxedo because he?s coming to bone you. In the b&w images, he looks like the dude operating a backroom weed shop. I flat-out LOATHE the image they chose for the official print ad too ? it looks poorly Photoshop?d, and for the love of God, Brad really needs to close his mouth.
Anyway, Chanel released their second commercial ? it?s basically the same commercial as before, only this one has more chicks.
Compare it to the first ad ? same bulls?t ?script?, but this one is just Brad:
Meh. I guess I like the one with the chicks more? It gave me something else to concentrate on other than the dumb script that Brad is reciting. I really don?t understand this new Chanel tagline either ? ?Chanel: Inevitable?. RLY? It is ?inevitable? that I?ll wear Chanel No. 5? No, it?s not. I asked for Ralph Lauren?s Safari for Women for Christmas, thank you very much.
PS? The Guardian has a funny story about how Brad?s Chanel ads are awful, but that Chanel ads have a history of being kind of awful.
Photos courtesy of CHANEL.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Brad Pitt's first full Chanel commercial: minimalist, sexy or underwhelming' | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Pitt?s first official ad/commercial for Chanel has come out! And it?s a doozy. Except not really. I guess I built it up in my head, thinking that it was basically going to be Pantless Brad Pitt holding a box of chocolates and talking dirty to a perfume. I didn?t realize that it was going to be about, like, the universe and how it?s not a journey and we?re all going to die, so we might as well wear Chanel No. 5 or something. I don?t really think ?Inevitable? should be the tagline. Wearing Chanel No. 5 is NOT fait accompli!
It?s underwhelming. I almost think it would have been more powerful if Brad had been looking into the camera the whole time. I can?t believe they hired Joe Wright ? a solid director known for his period films ? to direct this simple, minimalist commercial. It?s weird. Brad released a statement too:
?What?s important to remember about Chanel N5 is how revolutionary this fragrance is. When it was introduced, it broke all the rules by discarding meaningless ornamentation for an honest and open aesthetic, and a scent which embodies liberation from trend, creating a fragrance which remains as modern today as it was during its inception. Chanel N5 has always been the most iconic women?s fragrance. The beauty of its success for all these years is both elegantly simple and complex at the same time. That?s what I see being the appeal of this campaign; it goes beyond the abstract of emotion or beauty to evoke what is timeless, a woman?s spirit.?
[Via The Mail]
Dear Brad: I want to defend you, but seriously? Enough with the pretense. It?s a perfume ad, not women?s suffrage. Perfume IS NOT LIBERATING. Perfume is not a revolution.
Photos courtesy of Chanel.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Brad Pitt claims he doesn't do drugs, says 'War on Drugs' is 'an incredible failure' | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to his film Killing Them Softly (out in November) and his Chanel contract (the ads are due out tomorrow), Brad Pitt has another side project to promote: he?s the executive producer on a documentary called The House I Live In, directed by Eugene Jarecki. The documentary is about ?what President Richard Nixon coined ?the war on drug abuse? in 1972. The film looks at how things have exploded since then, how we ever got there in the first place, and what the hell it all really means.? Brad made an appearance at an LA screening for the film on Friday night (we don?t have those photos, sorry), and Brad ended up discussing his own drug use and his thoughts on The War On Drugs (and Drug Users). You can read the full interview here, at HuffPo, and here are some highlights:
Brad?s drug confession: ?My drug days are long since passed but it’s certainly true that I could probably land in any city in any state and get you whatever you wanted. I could find anything you were looking for. Give me 24 hours or so. And yet we still support this charade called the drug war. We have spent a trillion dollars. It’s lasted for over 40 years. A lot of people have lost their lives for it. And yet we still talk about it like it’s this success.?
What Brad thinks of ?The War on Drugs?: “[It] is possibly a barrier to keep the impoverished down. To keep them shackled. And I thought well that [producing this documentary] may be even too liberal for me [laughs], but we just came off of Hurricane Katrina. We had just witnessed that there was a particular portion of our society that was being ignored and that this could be the case.”
Brad on why we don?t even talk about drugs in this election: ?It?s been this taboo subject forever -? unless you’re claiming victory for a bust or a win. It’s absolutely taboo to talk about it as a failure. Which it is. It’s an incredible failure? If we spent a fraction of that on education …?
Brad on what the ?War on Drugs? is really about: ?Certainly that it’s a backwards strategy that perpetuates itself. But also Eugene came at it in a way that I had never thought about before. That the drug war is actually being used to hold a portion of our society down. It’s staggering to me what is being perpetrated in this name of a war on … immorality. It’s criminal in itself. And we’ve got to look at that. We have to change that.?
How we end the War on Drugs: ?The only way to end the war on drugs is to take the profit out of it. I know this comes with a whole other host of problems and I don’t know if I’m actually presenting it as a reality, but we have to look at the what-if-everything-was-legal and people were allowed to make their own choices. And we were treating it less as a criminal issue and more as a sickness. People do drugs to escape. We’re not talking about experimentation. People with long-term drug use are escaping.?
Brad on de-criminalizing drugs: ?There’s another issue. You can control quality. The quality of drugs is higher than it’s ever been, but it?s still all over the map. If you decriminalize, then they could control the quality.?
[From HuffPo]
The HuffPo interview is actually with Brad and the director, Eugene Jarecki, and Jarecki has a lot of interesting stuff to say about decriminalization and how our war on drugs has fundamentally changed the Mexican economy. It?s a fascinating discussion, and even if you don?t agree with Brad and Jarecki, I do wish this was a larger discussion in our society, and I wish politicians (from both parties) could discuss this situation with an eye towards the realpolitik.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Brad Pitt Attends "The House I Live In" L.A. Screening | | Added 12 years ago | Source: Celebrity Gossip |
|
|
|
|
|
Coming out to support a movie in which he served as an executive producer, Brad Pitt attended the "The House I Live In" Los Angeles Screening at Sundance Cinema on Friday (October 12).
The "Moneyball" star dressed in all earth tones, with a t-shirt, blazer, and khakis, as he introduced director Eugene Jarecki's documentary about the war on drugs.
During his intro, the 48-year-old actor admitted, "My drug days are long since passed but it's certainly true that I could probably land in any city in any state and get you whatever you wanted. I could find anything you were looking for. Give me 24 hours or so. And yet we still support this charade called the drug war."
In an interview with the Huffington Post, Brad spoke about what he feels would solve the country's drug problems.
He explained, "The only way to end the war on drugs is to take the profit out of it. I know this comes with a whole other host of problems and I don't know if I'm actually presenting it as a reality, but we have to look at the what-if-everything-was-legal and people were allowed to make their own choices. And we were treating it less as a criminal issue and more as a sickness. People do drugs to escape. We're not talking about experimentation. People with long-term drug use are escaping."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Brad Pitt Plays Dress Up in Interview Magazine | | Added 12 years ago | Source: Yeeeah |
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Klein photographed Brad Pitt as a number of different characters for the November issue if Interview magazine. I didn’t bother reading the article and none of the pictures were shirtless, so I’m gonna go with my gut here and say that he’s supposed to be evil Justin Bieber, John Waters at a garden party, albino Bob Marley, and Steve “Patch” Johnson from Days of our Lives. So is the photo shoot a piercing social commentary about our innate struggle for identity, or a bunch of stupid pictures that make no sense? That’s the mystery of art, baby.
Get your Dapper Dandy on in this white tuxedo jacket from Asos, and a sneak peek at Brad’s new Chanel commercial after the jump:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Brad Pitt on Interview Mag: 'The family is first, I don't want to embarrass them' | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Pitt appears on the cover of the October/November issue of Interview Magazine. I?m including some of the more interesting shots from the Steven Klein pictorial ? you can see the slideshow here. I guess the theme of the shoot is ?Brad playing weird characters? ? like, a Rastafarian, a dandy with a little mustache, a beer-drinking rock dude, a guy with an eye patch, etc. My favorites are the beer-drinking rock dude pics. This is Brad?s first major interview in support of Killing Them Softly, his new mobster film directed by his Jesse James director, Andrew Dominic. The interview is decent ? Guy Ritchie interview Brad, and they seem reasonably tight in real life. Guy managed to avoid being sycophantic or ass-kissy, which is nice. You can read the full piece here, and here are some highlights:
Brad on how he decides to do a film: ?Well, listen, I think I’m at a point now where I feel like I can jump into anything and lay something down that’s quality. Someone may be better at it?or maybe not?but I know that if I have a feeling for it, then I can make it interesting. But even more as I get older, it’s about the company that I keep. That’s the most important thing to me?that if I’m gonna spend however long it takes to make a movie, give up 14 hours a day for however many weeks or months, then it’s very important for me to know that I’m working with people who I respect and enjoy and that we’re going for something together. That’s it, really.?
Brad on accent work: ?Well, you know, I like a bit of song, and dialect is a song. I’m most comfortable with the Southern dialects, really. It’s easy, for example, for me to do Irish because we’ve got Irish heritage where I come from. We also have some German heritage. The Upper East Coast, though, is a little bit more connected to a British heritage. I’ve never done a proper Brit.
Brad on media and politics: ?Well, it’s what we were talking about, how so much of what’s in the media?at least in American media?falls in line in this way where it’s just parodying the mission statement. Again, so much of it seems to be about perception. We are a country that needs a story. You know, marketing is the word that I used earlier, but it’s really just a new term for propaganda. It might be a very human thing across the board, but we, in America, love a story?we need a story to get involved in. But then everything becomes more about how the story protects a certain perception as we pick sides? And, by the way, most people’s daily lives are just about surviving. Their lives are about making the weekly nothing and taking the kids out on a Sunday. Most people don’t have time to really study the issues. And the media could help us, but there’s capitalistic interest in the media outlets as well. I mean, the Internet has done a wonderful thing for us. But democracy doesn’t work unless people are well informed, and I don’t know that we are. People just don’t have the time.?
On ?The Assassination of Jesse James?: ?The Assassination of Jesse James remains one of my favorite films that I’ve done. You know, it’s still labeled a loser. In fact, Dominik couldn’t get a job for several years afterward because it got labeled that way after the opening weekend. But then we always knew, “That one’s a fine-wine film. It’s gonna age well.??
Family first: ?Yeah. I want it to be worthy enough of a story to leave the family, you know? They’re everything. The family is first . . . I also don’t want to embarrass them.?
How he feels about himself as an actor: ?Pretty damn solid. I’d say pretty damn solid.?
He enjoys producing more than acting: ?Yeah. I’d rather be behind the camera. As a producer, obviously, you’re part of a team that brings the story to the screen. It wouldn’t be there if you didn’t champion it or if you and a group of people weren’t championing it. I like that.?
On World War Z?s neverending production: ?We’ve got some tidying up to do there, but that one is gonna be big and entertaining. My boys are gonna love it.?
He?s still an Obama supporter: ?Well, I just want to avoid confusion with this film and say I’m a big supporter of Obama, and I think he’s our best answer for the next four years.?
[From Interview Magazine]
Brad and Guy also have a lengthy discussion about the background of the 2008 financial meltdown and whether or not ?business trumps humanity?. Brad makes some interesting points, but I think he over-simplifies the politics of it. As for whether Brad still gets love from fan-girls? did anyone swoon a little when he said, ?I want it to be worthy enough of a story to leave the family, you know? They’re everything. The family is first . . . I also don’t want to embarrass them.? Brad Pitt: Family First. Epic!
Photos courtesy of Steven Klein/Interview Magazine.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Did Danny DeVito & Rhea Perlman split because of his wandering eye? | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else watch It?s Always Sunny In Philadelphia? It?s not one of my can?t-miss favorites or anything, but it?s funnier than most of the network comedies on TV right now, and Danny DeVito is great on the show ? he plays the crazy, perverted criminal patriarch to a band of losers. I always thought that DeVito?s casting on the show was kind of genius ? even though Danny has played a lot of losers and malcontents in his career, most people have the warm-fuzzies for him whenever they see him, and the IASIP character subverts that. Anyway, it turns out that Danny might actually be kind of sleazy in real life. Following the announcement that Danny and his wife of 30 years, Rhea Perlman, were separating, Radar claims that Danny?s had a wandering eye for YEARS. Gross.
Is nothing sacred? Danny DeVito?s shocking split from wife Rhea Perlman was due to his wandering eye, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.
The It?s Always Sunny in Philadelphia star?s wife of 30-years was finally fed up with the 67-year-old actor?s flirty and inappropriate ways and gave him the boot.
In fact, things have been bad between the pair for over 10-years with the marriage hanging by a thread.
?He may not appear to be a ladies? man, but Danny certainly gets a lot of female attention,? a source close to the family told RadarOnline.com. ?Danny can be quite the flirt and because of his powerful status in Hollywood, he?s not ashamed to abuse his position and chat-up young, aspiring woman looking to make it in the industry. Despite his reputation as a lovable, funny guy in movies and on TV, Danny?s actually quite the womanizer. And, like a lot of red-blooded males, if he sees an attractive girl in a coffee shop or walking down the street, he will give her the eye.?
?After years of turning a blind eye to it, Rhea finally snapped. She had enough of his bad-boy behavior and wanted an end to their marriage. The break-up has been on the cards for a long time, probably over 10 years, because they haven?t been happy for a long, long time,? the source revealed.
As RadarOnline.com previously reported, Danny and Rhea announced Monday that they have separated after 30-years together.
The pair married in 1982 and have three kids: Lucy Chet, Grace Fan and Jacob Daniel.
Danny and Rhea worked together on the classic sitcom Taxi from 1978-1983 and later appeared onscreen in 1996?s Matilda. In 1992, they founded Jersey Films. Their production company was responsible for a number of successful movies, including Pulp Fiction, Garden State, Erin Brockovich and Freedom Writers.
[From Radar]
So, now you know. Danny DeVito still gets side-action from lots of women. Is it gross because he?s married or because he?s Danny DeVito? Or both? Well, I?m not ready to bury true love yet. Danny and Rhea weren?t one of my ?couples that can never break up?. My Couples That Can Never Breakup include Tom Hanks & Rita Wilson, Emma Thompson & Greg Wise, Angelina Jolie & Brad Pitt, and Kevin Bacon & Kyra Sedgwick. I will seriously LOSE IT if Emma and Greg ever split up, or if I suddenly find out that one of them is a cheater.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Brad Pitt talks dirty in new Chanel No. 5 ad campaign teasers: sexy or meh? | | Added 12 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Last week, we covered the Women?s Wear Daily exclusive on Brad Pitt?s Chanel contract, and how the new ad campaign would be dropping on October 15th, and how Brad probably got paid somewhere in the vicinity of $7 million for the campaign ? a figure that many of you took issue with. You know that Nicole Kidman got much more than that when she became the face of Chanel No. 5, right? She was reportedly paid $12 million for her appearances in commercials and the print campaign. But I digress. WWD said that Brad?s Chanel commercial would ?feature Pitt speaking in a way that the viewer assumes he?s speaking to a woman ? and then it?s revealed that the addressee is actually the scent.? I wrote, ?It might be kind of sexy. The commercial sounds like it?s just Brad talking dirty to a perfume. Which is kind of funny, and it could be really great.? Well, the teasers have come out, and it?s pretty much Brad talking dirty to a perfume:
It has potential. It could be good. I know this is going to become about how TOTALLY AWFUL Brad looks (?) and how ?Jennifer Aniston had him when he was hot? and all of that middle school stuff ? most of which I disagree with strenuously ? but can we all just admit to ourselves that Brad actually has a great voice? He has that Missouri drawl, it?s sort of Southern and low and it makes me tingly. His voice has improved over the years. I remember when it was a lot higher.
These are some photos that some people claim are part of Brad’s Chanel campaign. They’re nice photos overall, so enjoy.
Photos courtesy of Chanel, Bolero Mag.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | International Poster for Brad Pitt's "Killing Them Softly" Released | | Added 12 years ago | Source: Celebrity Gossip |
|
|
|
|
|
In preparation for its October release, a new international poster for the crime comedy "Killing Them Softly" has been unveiled.
The Andrew Dominik film is adapted from a George V. Higgins novel and is set in New Orleans. The story follows professional enforcer Jackie Cogan ( Brad Pitt) who investigates a heist that occurs doing a high stakes, mob-protected, poker game.
Also joining Brad in the cast are James Gandolfini, Sam Rockwell, Richard Jenkins, Bella Heathcote, Vincent Curatola, Ray Liotta, Scoot McNairy, Ben Mendelsohn and Linara Washington.
MTV recently spoke with up and coming actor McNairy, who plays one of the thieves in the movie, about how the movie relates to today's audience though it was based on a book written and set in the 1970s.
He said, "It's definitely got a political backdrop in the book, and [Andrew Dominik] has obviously modernized it and brought it up to speed with the McCain-Obama times and the Bush administration and all that. In the book, it's set in Boston. We made it in anywhere in industrial America. It's not specific as to where we are. There's an Australian in the movie with an Australian accent. I have a Boston accent. I think Brad's got more of a Chicago accent. It's a whole group of different people in this industrial world."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| | | 5.537.223
Photos Online+ 12.319 past week
2.773
Users Online | | |
| | | | | | | | We Salute
Nicole Kidman
Photos of Nicole Kidman will not count in your daily view limit, if you are a registered member
Tribute ends in
41 hours | | |
| | |
|
