(no subject)
It's the week for complaints about The Guardian. This interview with Keira Knightley has the journalist behaving like a sexist man-child, and goading Keira into giving him sarcastic and profane answers. He comes across to me as incredibly childish, and pushing buttons not in the interests of getting a good interview but because he's seven and wants to hold Keira's hand. Seriously. That's the only reason I can think of for why he asks stupid questions like "can you spell 'February'? Now do 'licence'." I'd tell him to fuck off, too, and I can't fault Keira for doing it. It's apparently a kind of game for him, where he wants to assert dominance over Keira, and bring her down because she's young, pretty, successful and female. And even if that's not what the atmosphere was like during the interview, that's how it comes across in his write-up. He appears intimidated by her, and enjoys getting a rise, but would he pull this crap with a male actor? And no matter what kind of crap he likes to pull during interviews, he doesn't have to write about it after. I actually emailed a complaint to the newspaper. This is what I said:
I wish to complain about Sam Wollaston's interview with Keira Knightley, as published in The Guardian on Saturday August 30 2008. I found Sam's article insulting to the actress, and not funny at all. When he protests "This will sound like the tragic fantasy of a male journalist who has fallen under the spell of a very pretty young lady", he is correct. Him fancying her is the only reason I can think of for his inane questions, like asking her to spell 'February'. It's the equivalent of pulling a girl's pigtails in the playground, and it's ridiculous in a journalist whom I assume is a grown man. Asking more questions that he knows she will not like, such as "how much did you earn?" and "did you spend last night alone?" read to me like shameless power plays, attempts to flirt with her and assert Sam's dominance. I was disgusted. Even if this is common interview practice, it's not what I'd like to read in the write-up. This piece was more about Sam than Keira, and Sam comes off looking like a right git who deserved every "fuck off" he got, and well done to Keira for not going along with his rubbish.
Furthermore, the paragraphs about women supposedly hating Keira were unnecessary and also offensive. Where's the evidence, besides a column from the same newspaper? For the record, I'm a woman, and I think Keira's great. Sam Wollaston, on the other hand...
I left out this alternate last line: "I now hate Sam Wollaston, though, so that's what I'll be using in the future to bond with my fellow women 'in a torrent of bile and loathing'", because I'm nicer than Sam Wollaston and whoever originally wrote that line. I mean, honestly. It's one thing to write an opinion column pitting women against women, but it's quite another to wave said column in the face of its subject. During a routine interview. Ugh, what an ass.
Wow, look at me, caring about stuff. It's like I'm 15 again.
Book: I finally got my hands on a Jodi Picoult, namely My Sister's Keeper. I haven't quite finished, so nobody spoil me for the ending!! But I'm doubting that it will be awesome because while the book's premise and pace is gripping, I feel Picoult's not in complete control. There are too many characters, and too many jumps back in time. Every other paragraph begins with a sentence like "Seven years ago..." or "When I was five..." and then it's some childhood anecdote that's supposed to be super-meaningful and parallel to whatever's happening now. And the characters. God. I can understand the appeal of exploring everyone's personal feelings, but do we need the love story between Anna's defence lawyer and her guardian ad litem? NO WE DON'T. I also think that Picoult is trying super-hard to pull my heart-strings by writing about possibly the most tragic situation she could ever devise for a family, in which there's love and hate and jealousy and all kinds of crap, and I don't appreciate being emotionally manipulated so blatantly, and to such extremes. Why did it take until page 300 for Taylor, Kate's one-time love interest to appear? That's a plot point that should have shown up earlier, and I think Picoult was just making stuff up by this point. "Hmm, what can I do to add even more pathos? I know, a love interest with cancer for the girl who has cancer! Who then dies prematurely, just as we know she will! WEEP, MY READERS, WEEP!" Also why have we heard from every man and his dog (okay, not the dog) but no first-person from Kate herself? Wait. It's going to end like that, isn't it? Either with her or with the damn dog. Picoult, I see your tricks, and I am not amused.
ETA: JODI PICOULT, YOU SUCK. YOU PLAY CHEAP WITH MY EMOTIONS, AND YOU PRETEND TO BE LIFE-AFFIRMING AND THEN FOR A "TWIST" YOU MAKE THE STORY BLEAK. I HATE THIS BOOK.
I wish to complain about Sam Wollaston's interview with Keira Knightley, as published in The Guardian on Saturday August 30 2008. I found Sam's article insulting to the actress, and not funny at all. When he protests "This will sound like the tragic fantasy of a male journalist who has fallen under the spell of a very pretty young lady", he is correct. Him fancying her is the only reason I can think of for his inane questions, like asking her to spell 'February'. It's the equivalent of pulling a girl's pigtails in the playground, and it's ridiculous in a journalist whom I assume is a grown man. Asking more questions that he knows she will not like, such as "how much did you earn?" and "did you spend last night alone?" read to me like shameless power plays, attempts to flirt with her and assert Sam's dominance. I was disgusted. Even if this is common interview practice, it's not what I'd like to read in the write-up. This piece was more about Sam than Keira, and Sam comes off looking like a right git who deserved every "fuck off" he got, and well done to Keira for not going along with his rubbish.
Furthermore, the paragraphs about women supposedly hating Keira were unnecessary and also offensive. Where's the evidence, besides a column from the same newspaper? For the record, I'm a woman, and I think Keira's great. Sam Wollaston, on the other hand...
I left out this alternate last line: "I now hate Sam Wollaston, though, so that's what I'll be using in the future to bond with my fellow women 'in a torrent of bile and loathing'", because I'm nicer than Sam Wollaston and whoever originally wrote that line. I mean, honestly. It's one thing to write an opinion column pitting women against women, but it's quite another to wave said column in the face of its subject. During a routine interview. Ugh, what an ass.
Wow, look at me, caring about stuff. It's like I'm 15 again.
Book: I finally got my hands on a Jodi Picoult, namely My Sister's Keeper. I haven't quite finished, so nobody spoil me for the ending!! But I'm doubting that it will be awesome because while the book's premise and pace is gripping, I feel Picoult's not in complete control. There are too many characters, and too many jumps back in time. Every other paragraph begins with a sentence like "Seven years ago..." or "When I was five..." and then it's some childhood anecdote that's supposed to be super-meaningful and parallel to whatever's happening now. And the characters. God. I can understand the appeal of exploring everyone's personal feelings, but do we need the love story between Anna's defence lawyer and her guardian ad litem? NO WE DON'T. I also think that Picoult is trying super-hard to pull my heart-strings by writing about possibly the most tragic situation she could ever devise for a family, in which there's love and hate and jealousy and all kinds of crap, and I don't appreciate being emotionally manipulated so blatantly, and to such extremes. Why did it take until page 300 for Taylor, Kate's one-time love interest to appear? That's a plot point that should have shown up earlier, and I think Picoult was just making stuff up by this point. "Hmm, what can I do to add even more pathos? I know, a love interest with cancer for the girl who has cancer! Who then dies prematurely, just as we know she will! WEEP, MY READERS, WEEP!" Also why have we heard from every man and his dog (okay, not the dog) but no first-person from Kate herself? Wait. It's going to end like that, isn't it? Either with her or with the damn dog. Picoult, I see your tricks, and I am not amused.
ETA: JODI PICOULT, YOU SUCK. YOU PLAY CHEAP WITH MY EMOTIONS, AND YOU PRETEND TO BE LIFE-AFFIRMING AND THEN FOR A "TWIST" YOU MAKE THE STORY BLEAK. I HATE THIS BOOK.