As you can well imagine, a site like this gets quite a lot of mail. Most of it's pretty favorable stuff coming from people who appreciate the site and what it's about. Some of it's requests for this or that celebrity to be featured. Once in a great while I still get proposals from guys who think that I'm the actress or model on the web page. But a good deal of it -- and I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone who's frequented this site -- runs a little hostile. Sometimes a lot hostile. And persistent. And to someone who doesn't have to answer it all, mildly amusing. So for the public's enjoyment I've decided to post all the hate mail still lingering in my mailbox, as well as my responses to them, and the protracted, silly correspondence that often followed. Some of it was representative enough of a particular complaint that it went on to be morphed into the FAQ, and some of the responses were later incorporated into the celebrity web pages themselves. Be sure to check back here from time to time, since no matter how much I contrive to head people off at the pass with my FAQ, this is one page on my site that never stops growing.

In any case, now you know how a web geek spends his time when he's not scanning pictures, eating, or sleeping.

Golem

DIE, GOLEM, DIE!

NICE SITE, BUT...

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

I KISS YOU!

FUCK PASSWORDS!

ROSANNA ARQUETTE

VALERIE BERTINELLI

BJÖRK

BRIGID BRANNAGH

CHINA CHOW

LANA CLARKSON

NIKKI COX

ELISHA CUTHBERT

TRACY DALI

SHANNON ELIZABETH

JANEANE GAROFALO

LORI JO HENDRIX

ANGELINA JOLIE

KERRI KENDALL

ALEX KINGSTON

JULIE McCULLOUGH

BECKIE MULLEN

BRITTANY MURPHY

LENA OLIN

NATALIE RAITANO

DENISE RICHARDS

WINONA RYDER

LEELEE SOBIESKI

MIRA SORVINO

UMA THURMAN

JENNIFER TILLY

LIZA WEIL

Big Orange

Thanks for the blunt but articulate comments, Big Orange.

Anyway, I think the source of your puzzlement over my "ideal female form" is this: there are the standards of beauty we reserved for "real", everyday people, and the standards reserved for the Beautiful People on TV, stage, or whatever. Any of the women featured on this site would easily be the most beautiful woman in the room if you had the fortune to meet them in real life. But on TV, where attractive people are a lot more common than in real life, you have to adjust your standards accordingly. To put it another way, imagine you're asked to pick your favorite of ten women randomly picked off the street. Naturally, you'll pick the one that comes closest to your "ideal woman". But then imagine that you're asked to pick your favorite of ten Playboy Playmates, and they all look like your ideal woman. Now you have you have to start getting pickier than you would normally be: this one's tits are too far apart, that one's forehead too big, and so on. So if I say that Michelle Williams is looking a wee chunky this season it's because, relative to everyone else on TV whose role it is to be the show's sexpot, she is. She's still a beautiful girl, and one of my favorites on TV, but she can stand to lose a few of those ten pounds the camera always adds just the same.

As for the hypocrisy of the site's title, I'll just say this: "Iconophile" means any lover of images; web shrines venerating a single celebrity's image tend to see their celebrity as the very definition of beauty; polytheistic sites like mine can afford to be more unbiased, since whether they mean to or not they invite the viewer to compare one beautiful celebrity with another, to discriminate between ten Playboy Playmates like in the example above. Besides, "show us your fuckin' celeb tits" is still asking for images, so "Iconophile" is neither inappropriate nor hypocritical.

And what right do I have to say anything if I myself am less than perfect? Imagine that I look like Jabba the Hutt and am violently misogynistic. What difference would it make? If I wrote that Calista Flockhart is looking a wee undernourished, would my own Jabba-like proportions make it any less true? Besides, whether I look like Jabba the Hutt or Pee Wee Herman, I don't get paid to look gorgeous; the women on this site do.

You write about women as though you were a seventy-year-old bachelor who never got laid

Swatek

Gosh, I didn't think it showed... ;)

By the way, I'll be 87 this November.

I just want to know where you get off saying the shit you do about people. You're a fucking hypocrite ogling these people's twats and tits and simultaneously saying that they're talentless, not that bright, and their careers are based on their bodies. What the hell do you do that is any better than these women's careers?

You must be a girlfriend-less, miserable, pathetic, fucker. You're probably the guy walking in the street that everyone pegs as a complete geekhole/asshole. Or you do have a girlfriend but she's some fat, ugly pathetic fuck herself that resents you wasting all your time looking at merchandise you'll never get your hands on. Either way, your personal life sounds like shit.

Don't be a pussy hypocrite.

Vanshay

Hello Vanshay.

Sorry you didn't much care for the site. However, I think you might be confusing admiring an actress' beauty with being a cheerleader for her career as a whole. Let's be honest -- as beautiful as the women featured on The Iconophile might be, there's a reason why most of them are still unknown to the general public. And I generally point out those actresses and models who have something going for them besides their looks. The point of the site is not to put everyone down, but simply to be honest and frank about their popularity.

As for my being a "girlfriendless, miserable, pathetic fucker", that may or may not be true, but what would it matter? If I said that Calista Flockhart is getting alarmingly thin, whether I myself am also stick thin or Orca fat shouldn't have any bearing on the truth of my observation. To say that someone is not a good actor doesn't mean that my own job has to be somehow loftier than an actor's, just as for you to say that someone's website sucks doesn't mean that your job has to be better than a web designer's.

In any case, this subject is dealt with more exhaustively here if you're interested.

I know that your MO is to inundate people with rhetoric and come up with some bullshit rational for the things that you put on your site. But think about it man, you put good looking girls on your site and suggest to all of them (whether they have been nude in something or not) that it's time to get nude all the time before they get old and fat. Some of these girls are old and nobodies and the others are famous and young (some even teenagers like Leelee Sobieski and Michelle Williams). According to you it doesn't matter what movie they were in (whether good or bad) as long as they are naked before they get ugly. And then you have no standards of beauty. Some of these girls are as fake and trashy as they come. Others are wholesome and you want to fuck up their budding self esteem (again referring to the teens) and to the insecure actresses who are getting over the hill. Which is another thing I got with you-- you need to be consistent man. If you gonna be sarcastic and be picky about the girls on your site then let it be. But if you're gonna be sarcastic and petty and then when one of the girls calls you on it you automatically kiss her ass. I don't understand your favortism towards the ones that bust your balls on the shit that you talk. You're destroying young womens' self esteem with your site and your critiques.

Van

You raised some interesting points:

Favoritism
You feel that I'm petty and sarcastic toward everyone except the ones that call me on it, whereupon I immediately turn tail and kiss their ass. I assume, of course, that you refer to the Julie McCullough page. Having looked over my comments there, all it says is that I had written that she looked "old and used up" the last time I saw her, which was on a short-lived TV show; Julie pointed out that this isn't true -- the last time I saw her was in one of the pictures on my site, and that if I didn't find her "old and used up" there, can I in all good conscience still declare her so? Conceding that maybe she isn't past her prime after all while still maintaining she looked awful in the show I saw her in is hardly kissing her ass.

Destroying young women's self-esteem
Actors and actresses are like beauty contestants -- part of their job is being judged for their looks, not just their acting abilities. If I get paid to design a web page for someone and they don't like it, it would behoove them the say so and not just accept whatever shit I care to give them. If Michelle Williams were a waitress and not an actress, I would never publicly declare her to be chunky because now it wouldn't be her job to be thin. But as long as it is her job, I, you, and everyone else is entitled to their opinion of her. And that's all I'm doing -- voicing my opinion, just as I would if I were sitting at home.

But perhaps you're suggesting that the self-esteem I'm destroying is not that of the actresses involved, but of other hapless young women who chance upon my site and are exposed to its toxic bile. That would be a rather ridiculous and condescending position to take, especially since most women I know are a lot more vicious about their comments than me or most other guys when they watch TV. The sort of criticism and occasional praise that I post on my site is the same sort of stuff most people -- and probably you as well -- say among themselves. It would be hypocritical to hide what I really think about this or that celebrity and simply post a lot of laudatory fluff.

I said "probably you as well" -- in fact you've been just as harshly and summarily judgmental in your own letter about the actresses you purport to defend as you accuse me of being. You begin by dividing them into "old and nobodies" and "famous and young", and later "fake and trashy" and "wholesome". How seriously should I take your grandstanding when you've dismissed so many women on this site as grotesque has-beens while insisting that the others are so fragile and unstable that they can't handle from me what they hear from other people every day anyway?

Bullshit rhetoric
If it isn't already obvious by now, just what is your letter if not self-righteous, grandstanding "bullshit rhetoric"? And not even very good rhetoric at that, since it basically reaffirms the very thing you purport to protest. And just what sort of answer could I offer to all your accusations that you wouldn't dismiss as bullshit? Since you've dismissed the answers I've given to other people who've taken your position, I can only assume that nothing I say will be satisfactory, which begs the question: Why did you even bother to write me (twice, no less!) if I'm such a bullshitter? More importantly, why do you even waste your time quibbling with a stranger about what he said on his website? And if I'm a "pathetic fuck" for doing what I do, where does that leave you, who spends his time analyzing the throw-away commentary on nudie sites? Do you fantasize that Michelle Williams feels better knowing that you're out there defending her honor in the backalleys of cyberspace? Do you picture some chance encounter with her where you casually let slip that you've been her secret, virtual bodyguard for some time now, fighting the good fight in her name, whereupon she's so filled with gratitude, so impressed with your virtual fearlessness, that she invites you to her house for a quiet dinner, her mouth innocently sounding the words but her eyes promising tantalizingly more...? No? Then maybe you need to analyze your own motives and figure out just what it is that prompts you to take time out of your day to accuse me of ultimately being no different from you when you could be off visiting other websites.

Indulgently,

Golem

You freak! If you have a girlfriend why don't you go fuck the hell out of her for me knowing she'd like my shaft stoking her flame more than yours since you're so obsessed with other people's twats and tits while you're (doing a lame job) trying to please her. Do you lick your own cum off the screen instead of muffing a real live woman? Let me guess-- you must have a battery operated snatch hooked up to your computer. Man I pity any girl that ends up with your geekass (if you can even get a girl faggot). She'd have to compete for your juvenile attention span with the trashy, obscure pussy you have on your site. I told you before that your girlfriend is most likely fat, ugly, and desperate (so as not to distract you from your fantasy world of fake tits and rotten cunts, you don't want her competing with your cyber-whores). Or she has some major eating disorders and self esteem problems because of you. You wreck people's lives with your shit-- whether they're famous, or not, fat or thin, young or old. In any case you're probably fucking your pet ferret.

If all the women on your site had as many issues about being over the hill at 34 and time to obsess about it like Julie McCullough then would your site turn into one huge ass kissing fest? This bitch Julie has way too many insecurities to go around correcting all the sites that write less than glowing opinions about her, trying to prove that she's still in the competition. I've fucking never seen her in anything worthwhile and I fucking dont' care. (But I'm asking you these questions all the same.) So if any actress can be as desperate as Julie and write your equally desperate ass (acting like some god behind a computer screen) then you'll reward them by genuflecting and rewriting your opinions of them?! Is this some indirect way of attaching yourself to a celebrity-wannabe and being their friend? Are you indirectly trying to help promote their careers through your pussy site? Are they paying you? Is this shit staged like wrestling? There's reverse psychology at play-- you tear them down, the girl writes you, then you apologize and build them up again, and then everyone's happy and being promoted.

Van

I'm not sure why you bothered sending yet another one of your sad little rants to me, especially since most of your first paragraph was little more than weak, generic come backs, the whole premise of your second paragraph was already addressed and nullified in my last email, and the last few lines of your email were pathetically imitative of my bit with the Michelle Williams fantasy.

In any case, your obsessive need to make me your daily penpal has already become tedious and dull, so this will be my last response to you. Don't bother writing back, since my email program is now set to filter anything coming from you into the trash with the rest of the junk mail.

Bored,

Golem

Dear Creator of Inconphile,

I looked at your site briefly and I'm shocked that someone could have so much time on their hands. That's really sad, for each celebrity, you probably have about 100 women on your Inconphile site, and you have thousands of scanned pictures for each woman, links, every film they have ever been in, what films their naked in, and their playboy appearances, etc, etc. The list goes on..... So do you just spend your entire life, looking at magazine pictures of these women, scanning their pictures, and watching their nudey films? Is your life just one big cheap, B movie? That's what its sounding like. The only thing you talk about on your site are some girls breasts, their impants, and bodies, or if they haven't gotten naked, how they should. I can't believe someone could be so obsessed, you sound like someone with a very vapid social life. A computer isn't that good of a friend. Are you little webpages the only thing that can fulfill your life? Yeah, half of the women mentioned on your site are ignorant porn star, B movie types, but they probably are laughing their asses off that someone like you are trying to degrade them. Do you actually think they care what you say or how sickly OBSESSED you are with them? You are sick, maybe you should just take a little break from your computer. Here's a concept, ever hear about getting a job, a real life, and a woman. GAWD, you probably spend your entire life in a daze, how does it feel to be the biggest loser in the world? You must be bitter about something, who knows, maybe women, and past experiences you have had with girls. Look, you probably can't even get plain, average looking woman.. so why bother dedicating your time to your obsessive little shrines to women who probably wouldn't bother spending one moment thinking about you, or even caring about your stupid INCONPHILE. STOP whacking off at magazines, and your porn, when's the last time you had sex? Been awhile, forgotten what it feels like? YOU ARE sad. You can't really justify that, can you with your nonsense psycho babble? And the way you talk about Laetitia Casta, like she'd actually go for you, or even spend one minute looking at you in interest. HELLO? What don't you understand? Has anyone ever told you that you are a demented, weird computer geek who has ABSOLUTELY no life? Yeah, Golem you're sooooo cool, I bet you got a lot in highschool.....(*cough, cough*). People like you make me sick. Take a look at your life, is that they way you want to be remembered. As a pervert, a fiend, who made degrading sites towards women? If you ever have a daughter, maybe you will understand what it's like to be a female. You look at women like their some objects that you get excited about. What A FU******* INSENSITIVE BASTARD. You repulse me. GOOD BYE, asshole.

Samantha

Hello Samantha. I get the sense that you didn't much care for the site...

Near as I can tell from your email, though, it sounds like you take my little hobby a lot more seriously than I do. I'm not sure what I could possibly have written to have provoked such a hostile response, but the next time you find yourself on a site like mine, remember -- it's just a website. ;)

Regards,

Golem

Dude get a freakin' life.

Melanie

OK, Melanie. Thanks for the advice. :)

you know dude you really suck.

try to think more internationally than just being another dumbassed american

I hate just about everything mut that counts you to. but I at least can argue for my opinion

Lína
[from Iceland]

Hello Lína, and thanks much for your observations. Unfortunately, I'm a little unclear on how to carry them out:

you know dude you really suck.

try to think more internationally than just being another dumbassed american

By "thinking more internationally", do you mean I should include a more internationally recognizable stable of women on the site? That I should write from the perspective a hep Icelander instead of from the dumbassed American that I was born as? Should I write more of my little remarks in Esperanto? Does AdultCheck not accept euros? Or can it be that I made a less than flattering allusion to some country that you feel should be referred to with more reverence? If this last is the case, then my being American isn't really the problem, as the whole site is full of less than flattering allusions to just about everything.

I hate just about everything mut that counts you to

I must confess I was a little let down by this declaration, since a bad review from someone who hates everything isn't much of a criticism.

but I at least can argue for my opinion

Given that your opinion as presented is vague at best, and that you undermined it with the very next sentence, I'll have to take it on faith that when you have an opinion, you're able to argue for it and not against it.

Anyway, thanks again for the feedback.

Þinn einlægur,

Golem

Golem,

I have seen that you have already recieved many e-mails saying some of the things I am going to say. But I figured I would just send it anyway, eventhough (judging by your responses), it won't make a difference to you anyway.

I know you have already read things from people saying you shouldn't say a lot of the rude comments you say about the girls' weight & looks. (But mainly weight.) You always defend it by saying that their career is to look beautiful if in a sexpot role, and a lot of the girls you are making out to be overweight are skinny. Just because they are not as stick-shaped as many other models and actresses, are not as bony, doesn't mean they are big, or chunky, or "need to lay off the snacks," or that they eat too much. I hardly know why I'm bothering to send you this because I know it won't make a difference, and it's probably just wasting both of our's time. But I (for some reason) wanted to let you know that many of those things hurt me. Everyone has different ideas about waht is beautiful, and most of these actresses are too skinny for my taste, but I love them too death and think they are drop dead gorgeous becasue of their acting and just "them"...I guess that something that you can tell by looking at them for a bit....something that you can find that's beautiful; no matter their weight. And please don't defend it with that Hollywood bullshit again...that's Hollywood; not you. And Hollywood seems to be more accepting of women with some curves than you are. I feel so hurt that it's not just directors, actors, models, designers, and trend-setters that are setting standards for beauty: everyone is. And many of the people I know that were like that, change as they get much older and kind of grow out of setting standards for beauty sexiness. But I'm not saying that you will or anything; some people just remain ignorant and close-minded for their whole lives. Sometimes, that's just the way they are. I'm sorry for wasting your time. But it's hurts me so much too read such discouraging things from people OUTSIDE Hollywood that are equally - if not more - judgmental on what's beautiful and sexy. Please don't go on that whole "judgment" thing again - I already read that mssage of yours that went on to judging things that had nothing to do with what the person was talking about. I'm not even really looking for an argument. I love acting, and it will be my major in a couple of years...it's one of my favorite things and I will try to make it a career when I'm older (for independent films). And I'm much bigger than Jeneane and Rose; they're not even big at all! Janeane isn't skinny, but she's far from big. Rose is skinny with naturally large hips and breasts...no matter how skinny she got, her hips would still not be much straighter. I'm not trying to even disagree with you about the stuff you reported about things Jeneane has SAID...if they are true, I don't think ANYONE had the right to say the stuff that Janeane or Joan Rivers said; no matter how skinny or "beautiful" they were. And everyone always defends things things by saying everyone has their right to their opinion; and I completely agree. However, there is always a way to express one's negative eopinion without being rude. I usually just go by the saying about not saying anything if you don't have anything nice to say. If someone is talking about something that they love and I hate, I either don't say anything, or when they ask, i just simply say I don't particularly like whatever we were talking about. Just like if someone doesn't fit your idea of a good size or look, you can still get your point across by not being so rude. And I don't think you do, but you should care a little bit more and be more thoughtful to other people's feelings and emotions. You act as if that doesn't matter; but people like you with that attitude are just a couple of reasons why so many people don't get their own ideas about beauty until long after they've missed out on lots of great people and hurt lots of people because they grow up with what everyone else calls beautiful, and call anyone who's no a certain size fat. That's just the message they get their whole lives. No one sould ever be called fat; nobody is fat. If they were, they wouldn't be alive because they would hav eno bones or organs; because the would BE fat. It's hard enough to have to live in a world of rejection; and then having to change yourself for other people, which is one of the most horrible, pathetic things in the world. Sorry this came out so long, and that I've probably just wasted your time with my feelings.

Sincerely,

Sherry Lyn

Hello Sherry.

Sorry to see that the commentary on my site has depressed you so much -- and that my answers to similar mail may have depressed you even more. While it'll probably not be much consolation, there are a few things I should attempt to clarify about my little commentaries.

Just because a woman doesn't look like a stick figure, it doesn't mean she's fat. "Fat" is a relative term. In the everyday world, "fat" might mean a 5'4" person tipping the scales at 200 lbs. In a sumo wrestling training camp, where everyone weighs in at around 200 lbs., "Tubby-san" might be the 400 lb. guy with the extra rice bowl. On TV, though, where all the "hot chick" roles are filled by women seldom exceeding 120 lbs., an actress hefting around a whopping 130 lbs. might find herself playing the "bitter sidekick friend" (to quote Garofalo) a lot more than she'd like -- even if her weight seems perfectly "average" off-camera.

Harsher than Hollywood. If my comments seem too quick in their conclusions, it's because I see the underlying Darwinism at work on the Serenghetti of Hollywood, and the cruel formulas I'm forever citing, as simplistic as they might seem, seldom fail. It's not that I want my favorite actresses to find themselves barred from the set after a few donuts too many -- that would mean less movies for me to vidcap -- it's just that I've seen it happen too often to ignore it as the most probable outcome.

Discrimination not just for Hollywood anymore. I'm a little surprised at your surprise that the audience is as discriminating as Hollywood, since the reason Hollywood has to be so discriminating in the first place is because the audience is. Camryn Manheim didn't play the Pamela Anderson role in Baywatch not because Hollywood wasn't open-minded enough, after all, but because the audience in general wouldn't have accepted her in that role.

Beauty is more than skin deep. Good acting probably doesn't really count as "beauty", as you suggest, but charisma certainly goes a long way -- which is why Pamela Anderson continues to be a worldwide fascination while the rest of the Baywatch cast has mostly been forgotten, and why Janeane Garofalo remains on this site despite the utter bewilderment of most of my visitors.

Missing out in life. The people who raise this accusation are usually the ones who for some reason take my comments personally, as if my observations regarding the aesthetic requirements of a beauty-driven industry were a rule to measure all people by. If I were a sports caster and declared that the 4'11" basketball player was too short to play effectively, it doesn't follow that I would only date 7' tall women who play basketball. One has nothing to do with the other.

Changing to please others. How people live their personal life is one thing, but in their professional life they had better be prepared to change whatever they have to to please others or they'll quickly find themselves unemployed. Work of any kind, whether it's pest control, food preparation, or acting, depends on keeping the customer satisfied, not the other way around.

No one is fat, since even fat people have bones. The only way that makes sense is if you're using "fat" as a noun; "fat" as an adjective doesn't mean the same thing.

Even if you're right, do you have to be so rude? Absolutely. Part of the inspiration for this site (apart from my own kicks, of course) is the disparity between how celebrities are talked about in print (where Sophia Loren is still "the beautiful Sophia Loren") and how they're talked about in normal life, where no comment is too frank or too crude and women are usually twice as nasty as men. That's the sort of brutal honesty I wanted on my site, something that would cut through all the nonsense and look at the real reason why people like this actress while they've lost interest in that one. It's not that I'm trying to be rude, I'm just trying not to be hypocritical.

Anyway, like you, I've let my letter go on much longer than planned, and what's worse is that I've probably depressed you even more. Sorry about that. But know, at least, that there's method to the malice, that behind my online jerk persona stands a jerk with a point, however simple. And let me just say "don't take it personally" in advance -- just in case your own acting career should someday result in a place here on The Iconophile... ;)

Regards,

Golem

Greetings,

Was it your intention to produce a website that once again reduces women into instruments for male pleasure? Promotion of impossibly proportioned women, who have bottled tans and silicone breasts, not to mention being airbrushed retouched and PhotoShopped, can lead some young girls and women feel extreme depression, shame, and hatred of their bodies - which are in fact beautiful, sensual and healthy bodies. I wonder how you feel about this? You seem like a reasonable man. I will put aside my anger over the sexist and demeaning comments on your site in order to find out if you indeed did intend on contributing yet another humiliating website to the internet. Write to me at [sugarviolet84] If you abuse me in any way, the shame belongs to you, not me.

Linda

Hello Linda.

Every now and then, someone who's read my FAQ page or hate mail page gets cute and writes me a spoof hate mail, which I was sure your email was when I got it, what with it's suggesting that there's some sort of internet conspiracy to afflict women the world over with low self esteem. In case it isn't, then no, I did not create my site for the sinister purpose of upsetting you or the gender you feel you speak for -- any more than a museum celebrating the masters of impressionism sets out to make artists who are neither masters nor impressionists feel inadequate, or a basketball team owner sets out to depress short people by only hiring very tall men.

Moreover, it's a bit solipsistically childish to expect everyone to like a person as-is, especially if that person is not remarkable in any way. After all, it's the remarkable and exceptional that people want, not the ordinary and commonplace, which is why people who are exceptionally beautiful, strong, funny, talented, wealthy, hung, stacked, or whatever will always be in more demand than people whose assets are less pronounced.

So before you accuse another website like mine of membership in a vast, misogynistic cabal, first try to imagine you're assembling a football team -- do you recruit every average, out-of-shape guy who applies, or do you pack your team with the biggest, beefiest guys you can find? Then remember that the entertainment industry has the same choice -- they can offer ordinary people that the viewing public sees every day anyway, or they can offer uncommonly beautiful, funny, or otherwise talented people the likes of which few have seen in real life. Which would most people rather watch? Which would you rather watch? Do this, and I think you'll find that the world is a little less cartoonishly villainous than you suspect.

Regards,

Dr. Evil

Hello "Dr. Evil", (oh my, how cartoonishly villainous)

I can see where you are coming from in a lot of the things that you said in your reply to me, but I think it is to your detriment that you resorted to using words like "childish", and "solipsism" and to start the letter by saying that you thought my email was some sort of mock-feminist joke, well, what can I say, it does not endear me to you in the least. You may as well have written "Hooray, another execrable e-mail from some Bimbo who confuses me with someone who gives a shit" And I wonder why you didn't? Because you consider yourself too intelligent? Too articulate?

I have tried to listen to advice such as "Give back as good as you get" but in this instance I am not prepared to do that, seeing as I am a person who cares a great deal (too much) what a person might feel like if I am NASTY to them and so on. Maybe in my email I should have enlightened you on my situation a little, but I thought it would be wiser not to, because to let you into my world again would be yet another source of great amusement to you.

Also I would like to point out that I did not "accuse" you, or your website of anything, I merely posed some questions to you, which you evidently did not like to be asked, judging by your amusingly hostile email.

I am not a Femme-Nazi, nor am I a man-hating person. I only know that when I saw your website, I broke down in tears because of my own insecurities and rage. I cannot believe that I have given you the satisfaction of knowing these things, but for some reason I feast on the disdain of strangers on the internet.

Do me a favor and don't give me shit like that ever again.

Solipsistically yours,

Tai has now left the building

sugarviolet84

Well Tai (or Taryn, or Linda, or however you want to be known), I'm sorry to see that my site has caused you such distress, but let's get a few things straight:

Is this letter for real? You'd be surprised how many letters I get spoofing the endless hate mail I have posted on my site. Which is all well and good, but sometimes it's a little hard to tell the real ones from the spoofs. And because of the grand scale of your email's accusations, it was not unreasonable to assume that it was yet another wise-ass fan having some fun.

Solipsistic childishness. All children are solipsistic by nature -- they are the sole sun in their universe, and see everything only in terms of how it affects them. It's only after years of living among other people that they learn to empathize and take other perspectives into account. By suggesting that sites like mine exist for the sole purpose of oppressing you, that they have no agenda of their own but to make you upset, you demonstrate that same "it's all about me" style of thinking. The pretense of speaking on behalf of all women does not make your grievance with me any less about you, since, by presenting yourself as being of one mind with women everywhere, you in fact reduce them to a mere extension of you, a rhetorical posse to stand behind you in mute support of whatever you might care to say. And since it should be clear to anyone with any life experience that nobody sits down and thinks, "How can I make women everywhere feel really bad about themselves?", childish and solipsistic seem like two shoes very much in your size. (This may not be the most polite observation I can make, but as you must have gathered from my site, I'm not in the habit of making polite observations.)

Accusations. I was a little disappointed to see you backpedal on this, but look at your letter again. It flatly says (1) "There are many sites littering the net whose sole purpose is to belittle women"; (2) "The Iconophile is such a site." The only question you pose is, "Did you plan on becoming such a misogynist, or did you just grow into it naturally?" An accusation is still an accusation, whether or not it ends in a question mark. If you're going to make one, you should be prepared to own up to it; otherwise you simply waste everyone's time -- yours, mine, and that of anyone reading this correspondence later.

Insecurities and rage. That you have some unresolved issues to work out seemed evident from the start, but since you brought them up, I think you can concede that in a prickly world, your skin might be a little thin. You probably shouldn't take my site so seriously -- Lord knows I don't.

Don't ever give me shit like that again. Shit is where you find it, and I think you see it materializing much more than I do.

Regards,

Golem
The Scatophile

Hi, I just wanted to ask, how old are you? are you married/ have you ever been to California? Because, for a guy, you seem to almost not trust any pair of tits that are put in front of you. Why? I mean some you judge right, but there is a whole bunch-load of women you have labeled as "fake", and they're just hard to belive how neive you can be. Anyway, I just wanted to know where you live, cause you have to understand that some people just are naturally talented, don't be harsh and be so negative.

Ratapala4

Hi.

Unless I'm misreading your email, it seems I've given you the impression somewhere on my site that I feel that breast implants and talent are mutually exclusive. Of course, one has nothing to do with the other, and if I was unclear about that anywhere, then I obviously have some rewriting to do. And in any case, I don't have a problem with implants per se -- it's when they're so fake as to be a distraction that I'd rather not see them.

Oh, and to answer your main question: Yes, I've lived in California -- in Anaheim, Westwood (Los Angeles), and San Diego -- and still do.

Naively yours,

Golem

Your sites are contributing too the dumbing-down of the world. Please stop. Nobody cares. Or I should say, don't give people a chance to care about this crap. You speak as if you actually know anything about the people you write about. I know a good number of people on the list quite well, and what you write makes them out to be 1 dimentional. Your knowledge of their lives comes from the media, which is already a joke for credibility. All that aside, what good does it do to write this crap up for others to see and possibly leave their computers thinking that so and so is all washed up, or sucks at this or that? No good at all. Especially when you haven't a clue what you're really talking about. Do yourself a favor, and do something more constructive with your time, and less destructive. The world will be a better place.

-kris

Hello. Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you -- I had to erase my hard drive without a backup recently, and reconstructing it (along with all the mail) took a bit of time.

Anyway, sorry you didn't much care for the site. Like many people, you seem to feel the site owes its public a fuller picture of the celebrities it features, that it should discuss them as people instead of as transitory media phenomena. But as your need for a less crass approach is easily enough met at any of a number of other sites (to say nothing of TV and magazines), it would hardly profit anyone for me to imitate something already so ubiquitous. Instead, I've decided to discuss Hollywood's beautiful people on my site the same way I do at home -- the same way most people do at home -- which is with brutal frankness and directness, and seldom ventures beyond people's interest in them as media creatures and masturbatory skeet. (And let's be honest -- most of the people on my site are only of interest to the public insofar as they can get it off.) And as I seldom deal directly with celebrities themselves, I'm under no obligation to discuss them in terms of anything but their one-dimensional public personae and physical beauty. For you, this is "dumbing down"; for me, it's "cutting through the bullshit".

In any case, it's unlikely we'll ever see eye to eye on this subject, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and go about our own merry ways.

Regards,

Golem

The following exchange took place between a woman named "Tiger" and me as the webmaster of the now defunct "Used Tissues" site:

Hi. I guess you expect ordinary women to hang their heads in shame--after all, you've done a great job of picking apart celebrity women--to which noncelebrity women are mere peasants. I'd love to see your picture, young man--I'm sure I could make comments about your chin, forehead, eyebrows, nose, etc. Yes, you say that actresses are supposed to look good, but they're people just like everyone else. And most of the actresses in "used tissues" are beautiful. Oh, to be as beautiful as them. You seem to see actresses toward the end of taking off their clothes. Is that perhaps how you see women? You need to understand nudity in context, instead of expecting it at every turn. I understand your hormones are raging, but you need to grow up, little boy, and realize that women are not objects that you can pick at, dismember, and judge. Your body isn't perfect either, and I suspect that your judgements about normal women you see around you in life are closely aligned with those of female celebrities. You need to realize that the body is secondary--it contains the heart, soul, and mind. I understand that young men are very body-oriented, and tend toward corporeal nit-picking--like yourself. I live at a college, with the 18-22 male demographic. Bodies, their shape, structure, and appearance are important. Men are visual. But at some point you have to accept flaws, and you are the extreme case. Something's always wrong, isn't it? Her head's too big, her butt's too fat; her breasts aren't the right shape, she's too skinny, she's got a schnozz. No wonder the ladies of today torture themselves with plastic surgery and develop eating disorders. Hollywood directors and producers are just like you, honey--give or give a few years. This is why women have to struggle with their weight--in Hollywood and everywhere. Did you see the latest issue of People? "Body after Baby," with before and after pictures, suggesting that pregnant was "before." Never mind that the pregnant shape is beautiful, never mind that the body has done something amazing. No, it's all about weight. This is how these lovely ladies pay their bills and feed their kids. They'd BETTER get into shape quick, their livelihood depends on it.

Honey, when are you going to understand the body for what it really is. The body is nice, it's external, it's there to express the inner workings. Tears must fall from a physical eye to show the sadness within. A heart must pound, a real heart, to express desire, passion...the body is nothing more than the instument of the soul. Don't ever forget that.

Tiger

Thanks much for the comments. Most of the email I get is requests for this or that actress to be posted on the site, so to get mail like yours was rather refreshing.

Anyway, I'll try to keep this brief:

I guess you expect ordinary women to hang their heads in shame

Why would I expect such a thing? Used Tissues is about models and actresses of the T&A variety, not "ordinary" women; my comments about the former do not apply to the latter. B-movie starlets are very much like sumo wrestlers, after all, in that they're a rarefied group with unusual physical requirements. The average sumo wrestler tips the scales at 265 lbs. -- if a sportscaster expresses doubt about a hopeful 90 lb. wrestler, it would hardly be fair to accuse him of trying to make men under 265 lbs. feel bad about themselves. And while a 265 lb. woman may be more or less commonplace on the street (especially in the U.S.), she would make a very unpopular star in a latenight erotic thriller.

You need to understand nudity in context, instead of expecting it at every turn.

Anticipating (or recommending) nudity from actresses whose careers are built on titillation is hardly expecting it out of context. Just as it's not unreasonable to expect acrobatic fight sequences from a Bruce Lee movie, it's not out of line to expect nudity from a Jenna Jameson flick. Or even a Katie Holmes movie, now that she needs to shed her association with the soon-to-be-canceled Dawson's Creek.

Something's always wrong, isn't it? Her head's too big, her butt's too fat...

Actually, such criticisms are comparatively rare on my site, and some of my celebrity pages make no reference to the way they look at all.

you need to grow up, little boy, and realize that women are not objects that you can pick at, dismember, and judge

Of course they are, and so are men -- and everything else the senses can pick up. A photographer doesn't have to know you personally to decide what's your best angle and lighting; he breaks you down into light, shadow, color, etc., and proceeds from there. Similarly, a film critic doesn't need to know an actor personally to evaluate his or her performance, look, and charisma. You yourself pick at, dismember, and judge whenever you decide who you'd have sex with and who you wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

Your body isn't perfect either

Whether it is or isn't, it hardly matters, does it? If it did, only actors and other people in the entertainment industry would be entitled to say which movies are good and which ones aren't, political leaders alone would be qualified to declare their rule just or unjust, and only webmasters would have the credentials to criticize other websites.

Never mind that the pregnant shape is beautiful

Like most of the world, I won't. People like to say that pregnant is beautiful, but meanwhile Poppin' Mamas (a nudie magazine I once saw featuring pregnant women) is far from flying off the shelves.

They'd BETTER get into shape quick, their livelihood depends on it.

It's the law of supply and demand. If people want thin because fitness and health are their ideal of beauty, then actresses and models selling their beauty for a living had better look fit and healthy. Those that don't like it need to switch to an industry where what the customer wants is less important.

Honey, when are you going to understand the body for what it really is.

Lovemuffin, the body, like most things, is whatever one wants it to be.

Well, so much for keeping this brief.

Regards,

IdleHand

IdleHand, thank you so much for your reply. Just so you know, I do not pick at people the way you do. All you care about are women's breasts. The point of being an actress is not to be thin. Doesn't anyone see that acting is not modeling? What if someone is playing someone who's overweight?

Sorry if you never wanted to hear from me again, but your response got me interested. Why do you run a site called Used tissues, and why is it all women?

Tiger

I agree that the point of all actresses is not to be thin or otherwise attractive, nor have I ever suggested that on my site. Actresses have to be able to play different roles, after all, and not every role calls for a sexpot. But my site is not concerned with all actresses, just the ones who do habitually play the sexpot, who are, in effect, models with dialog. That's where my interest lies, and that's why I run this site.

For a more exhaustive discussion of this topic, you might want to see my marathon debate with actress/model Lori Jo Hendrix at <http://www.used-tissues.com/lotion/hendrixlorijo.html>.

Regards,

IdleHand

Tell me something, do you have any respect for women at all...? You would be an interesting page to tell ihatemen.com about. Yes, there is a website called I HATE MEN, and it's where we talk about people like you who have no respect for women or their bodies. Tell me, when you look at women, do you see a body? Nothing more? How frightfully disgusting. This is why women are afraid. It's scary, being a member of the gender disrespected and degraded. Why don't you focus on actors who make their living being "pretty boys"? I know your interest lies in actresses, but why so exclusive? I also have looked at the terms you used to describe Lori Jo: "cute, sensual, despite obvious breast implants." Ah, this is interesting, very interesting. Is that what women are to you? This is how not only actresses, but women in general are able to find their value, their self -worth, as it were. Your words sting.

Because you see women as objects, you use your website to narrow it down to a very small group of women: famous actresses. In reality, you see all women this way, you judge them based on body parts, appearance. You tell yourself Used Tissues is okay because it's about women you will never see. YOU SEE ALL WOMEN THAT WAY. You see all women as objects, works of art, as it were, that are either crafted to perfection or replete with flaws. As a woman, this disgusts and angers me. This is why I have had continuous problems with men and their attitudes. You are in good company; most men are excellent at taking women apart, picking them apart, piece by piece, and of course the painstaking evaluations. Men have this down to a science; in mere seconds they can evaluate a woman. It is repulsive. You have found an outlet for this male tendency...Used Tissues. You tell yourself that the objectification is acceptable as long as the object is a public figure, who you assume everyone (casting agents, directors, producers, people in general) sees as an object. The fact is, these people are qualified, highly skilled professionals who DO NOT see them as objects. They see them as actresses.

With regard to your statement that "sexpot actresses should be thin," that's a crock of shit and you know it. Actresses should not have potential roles closed off because of their weight or appearance. You think "sexiness" (whatever it means) is limited to only a certain body structure, face structure, chest size. You're a madman!

In closing: I should be very curious to know your age. You are probably in your twenties, right?

Ah, men in their twenties, who see women's bodies as objects of sexual gratification and little else.

If I am wrong, do let me know! If I am wrong in anything I have said!

Tiger

Your continued fascination with my site is flattering, to say the least.

do you have any respect for women at all...?

I don't respect or disrespect women simply because they're women any more than I respect or disrespect men simply because they're men. My contempt and admiration is reserved for individuals.

You would be an interesting page to tell ihatemen.com about.

You frequent a site called ihatemen.com and you accuse me of hating an entire gender?

Why don't you focus on actors who make their living being "pretty boys"? I know your interest lies in actresses, but why so exclusive?

Indeed, why don't I feature make-up artists on my site as well? And film directors? And mail carriers? And customer service representatives? And auto mechanics? Why not have a site about every facet of human civilization all at once?

Obviously, a site that tries to be about everything is a site that's about nothing in particular, a subject that doesn't much inspire me. My site's about female celebrities, a subject I'm familiar with and one of interest to more people than any site I might come up with featuring male celebrities. To wonder why my site doesn't feature anything but female celebrities is like wondering why a local dog show doesn't feature more Bauhaus architecture exhibits.

"cute, sensual, despite obvious breast implants." Is that what women are to you?

No, that's what Lori Jo was to me. Without knowing her personally, her physical appearance was all I had to work with. What I think of her now can be divined, I'm sure, from my posted correspondence with her.

This is how not only actresses, but women in general are able to find their value, their self -worth, as it were.

If your sense of self-worth is that dependent on what you believe men in general think of you, then -- no offense -- the problem isn't men, but you.

In reality, you see all women this way, you judge them based on body parts, appearance.

That's a rather bold assumption, don't you think? If I say President Bush is an idiot, I don't think it follows that I see all men as idiots, or that I judge all men by the same criteria I judge the president by. Similarly, it would be foolish to judge a porn actress' skill with dialog by the same standards one would judge a Shakespearian actress. Porn actresses, b-movie actresses, models, beauty pageant contestants -- professional sex objects all, and they should be evaluated accordingly. Which is why Kathy Bates will be theoretically employable until she dies, whereas Jenna Jameson will have to switch to producing or mainstream acting once she gets too old to hold the masturbating public's interest.

You tell yourself Used Tissues is okay because it's about women you will never see.

Again with the assumptions on my behalf. Used Tissues is okay, to use your word for it, because it frankly discusses professional sex objects in terms appropriate to the job. Whether I see them in person or not is irrelevant.

This is why I have had continuous problems with men and their attitudes.

Again, I get the sense that your esteem issues ultimately have little to do with men per se.

most men are excellent at taking women apart, picking them apart, piece by piece

As are most women I know. For all your victimologist grandstanding, the blunt commentary on my site often pales in comparison to the razor-tongued remarks I've heard from the mouths of women regarding men. And women, too. The art of dissection knows no gender.

The fact is, [casting agents, directors, producers] are qualified, highly skilled professionals who DO NOT see them as objects. They see them as actresses.

I can only assume you are neither a casting agent, director, nor producer.

Actresses should not have potential roles closed off because of their weight or appearance.

If an actress weighs 300 lbs, then "sex pot" is not a potential role for her. If an actress is white and has the face and body of a Playboy playmate, then playing Don King is probably not in the cards for her. If she's not particularly funny, then her potential roles in comedies, too, will be closed off. Unreasonable, maybe, but it's the way of the world: people who can't look or act the part often don't get the job.

You think "sexiness" (whatever it means) is limited to only a certain body structure, face structure, chest size. You're a madman!

Charisma goes a long way, too. Some actresses have it, some don't. Those that don't have to rely on their faces and bodies corresponding with the public's ideals of beauty. If this makes me mad, then the entire world is mad. Except you, of course.

I should be very curious to know your age.

Should you? You seem to believe that men in their twenties are guilty of the most war crimes in the battle of the sexes, but surely you feel men of all ages after puberty are guilty of mental gynocide.

If I am wrong, do let me know!

You are hereby duly informed.

Regards,

IdleHand

Let me start over. I can tell, from what you wrote that you don't think I am very smart. You know more than I do and therefore, you can come back with these remarks.

So, producers, casting agents, and directors DO see women as objects. Thanks, you taught me something. So you want to focus on actresses. Why don't you talk about their characters? Why do you have to talk about the body? When I asked, about your "cute, sensual, obvious fake tits" comment, if that was what women were to you, I meant, is that what you see women as...do you look at a woman and think, "Oh, cute, even though her head's too big for her body," or "Sexy, but too skinny," or these typical male comments. Nope, my self worth does not depend on how men think of me. Thank goodness for that. I agree with you that porn actresses are professional sex objects. As for the others, no. Beauty is something else. Actresses in normal movies should not be judged as you would judge actresses who make their living being naked.

Now, about you: are you in your twenties? It's ok if you are. It just means that you think you know a lot, like most men in this age group, and you are quick to put someone like me down. You probably hope I'll stop emailing you. Well guess what? We have something in common: no life. So I'll keep emailing as long as you keep being an ass. You think I'm wrong now, but you just wait.

Tiger

The following exchange took place between someone called "AlanRay" and me as the webmaster of the now defunct "Used Tissues" site:

Dear IdleHand,

I think that your comments about looks being a very important, if not the most important part of being an actress, are absurd. You obviously don't know anything about acting, because a true actress doesn't have to be insanely beautiful to be a good actress, she just needs to be able to act. Now just a small question for you, why are so bitter towards all of these girls who are at least semi-successful?

AlanRay

Hello AlanRay.

While acting may be about many things, the look of an actor is often most important -- not too many other jobs require a headshot just for an interview, after all, and few places have as many beautiful but glaringly unqualified people working as Hollywood. Whether an actor is easy or rough on the eyes, look is always paramount -- if a part calls for an old black woman, for example, Robert DeNiro probably won't get it no matter how good an actor he might be, since he really doesn't look the part. And if a part calls for a sexpot, there, too, the actor had better fit the bill.

The actresses featured on this site are not here because they're good actresses in the Meryl Streep sense of the word; they're here more in the Pamela Anderson sense. Not that there's anything wrong with either sense -- different actors have different fortes, and one forte isn't necessarily better than the other.

As for the bitterness, I wasn't aware that anything I've written on the site was especially bitter. Cynical, maybe, but I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Regards,

IdleHand

What do you look like anyway? Would any of your critics hush themselves if they knew?

Hello Les.

Glad that on the whole you like the site. And thanks for the refreshingly sober and non-hostile criticism -- and I am actually curious to hear your thoughts on the nature of judgement. The Iconophile may not be the first place that leaps to mind when one thinks "philosophical debate", but I'm much too lazy to start up a site that is.

But now to address some of the issues raised in your email. First on the list is the ever-popular perpetuation-of-sexism charge. The idea here is that sites like mine encourage people to demand beauty of actresses but only talent of actors. To me this is like accusing McDonalds of keeping America carnivorous. McDonalds may sell meat (or something like meat), and it may even be the biggest seller and promoter of it, but if people didn't already like meat, McDonalds would never have gotten as big as it has. So too with Hollywood and the web. The reason there are so many sites like mine out there is that most men are more interested in beauty and titillation when it comes to women than anything else. Not that most women aren't as well, but they're not obsessed with it as men are, i.e., they're not as willing to pay for it, or to take time out of their lives to maintain web shrines. And in an industry ruled by accountants, pollsters, and focus groups, it's what people are willing to pay for that makes it to the big screen, and since Australopithecus that's meant sex and beauty. This week's Entertainment Weekly declared that recent "chick flicks" like Girl, Interrupted, Tumbleweeds, and Anna and the King all bombed, which suggests that most women care about seeing actresses in strong roles that emphasize talent like people in general care about watching PBS -- they all say they want more PBS-like shows, but meanwhile they're all watching Baywatch. So the bell of chastising morality tolls not for the sexism of the entertainment industry, the fashion industry, or websites like mine -- it tolls for thee. ;)

And what about the actresses? Why, you ask, should women like Janeane Garofalo have to get naked or get out? Actually, as I've explained to more than one Garofalo fan, my rhetorical call for Janeane to "get naked in a film already" was meant more figuratively in the spirit of "play ball or get off the field" -- i.e., "you're in an image-driven industry; either work in it or don't, but stop complaining about it." Her career, I argued, is based more on her looks than on the appeal of her comedy, and when her looks go, suddenly all those die-hard fans will start to wonder what they thought was so funny. And from what I've heard, it looks like she might actually finally be willing to play ball and drop some of those extra pounds she's always talking about now that HBO's offered her a regular show.

The point is this: Most actresses owe the fact that they're working to their looks. They may have talent as well, but most ticket-holding men aren't terribly interested in that. And if looks are what's paying your rent, then looks are what you need to keep exploiting. It's a rare actress who has sex appeal and gets a shot to earn the public's respect as an artist.

"But there's more to a woman than tits!" you protest. Of course there is. But no one is paying to see those other parts. In showbiz, the response to your objection is "Yes, there's bush, too."

But enough of my pontificating. What else is in your email?

Ah, yes: Shannon Elizabeth. I actually do like her, just not in everything I see her in. I like her in American Pie and in Maxim, but not in Playboy and one or two other places I've seen her. So I go up and down on my stance on her. But as for the "shame management program" bit in my posted response to someone's protesting Shannon's admittance to The Iconophile, that was meant as an exercise in sarcasm, not in genuine contrition.

I'm none too familiar with Carla Gugino, so I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Oh, and as for whether the teeming throngs of my critics would hush themselves about my appearance if only they saw me ... well, they might, but where's the fun in that? ;)

Dear Golem;

If all men want to see is t and a then the flaw lies in men. Of course I must admit that I would see a movie if an actress like Nikki Cox were getting topless in it, but there are a number of actresses I would go to see whether or not they ever got naked. Personally, Rachel Liegh Cook or Claire Danes fully clothed can do more for me than either of Nikki Cox's udders.

The movie industry is image driven, yes but to say that and get behind it is much simpler for ones own predilictions than to challenge that isn't it? If the industry is a problem than "oh well what the hell" or "I'll just use that as an excuse" is a so-so argument at best unless you honestly don't believe the industry has problems which indicates a personal problem.

True enough, McDonald's is cashing in on peoples taste for meat, but the fact that they're there doesn't help.. If it is argued that whether or not they were there someone else would be is true but still indicates a larger problem for society at large. McDonald's is pretty sorry assed food I might add.

Actresses can be judged on different standards sometimes. Laetitia Casta can be judged by her looks because modeling is really all she does. But actresses should not have to undress just to maintain a career (although I don't mind if they do). "Bush?" Puh-lease! My long winded friend, you are a tas mussed. Everyone knows that ass comes beforehand.

My point being, I don't mind if an actress/model, whatever gets naked on screen. I actually wouldn't mind if you did away with the limited access on your site. But if an actress complains that her career is hampered because she doesn't want to take off her kit, than it isn't enough to say "Oh well, rule of thumb. Shut up and get'em out." If men can't respect an actress or women in general, then the problem is the man or men who are more than slavering sex beasts who can't control themselves. Of course if Shannon Elizabeth wants to go topless in a movie, more power to her! But if she doesn't want to, same deal.

I would like to see Janeane Garofalo shut up for a bit, same with Andy Dick. Actually I'd like a giant mute button for the lot of them. Oh well.

Les

Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I've been dealing with transferring all my files to a new computer and a new operating system, and while I'm mostly done with it all now (I think), quite frankly I'm ready to hang myself with the mouse cord. :-/

But enough with trivial matters. On to the tits and ass... ;)

Here's the problem: Underlying your whole stance on my site is the notion that there's something inherently wrong with people's sexual urges, and that the silver screen should be a temple of talent unsullied by the baser cravings of the crude masses. If most men are more interested in seeing Nikki Cox strip than act, it's certainly not due to any "flaw" or deficit in their character -- it's how they're designed. No one blames a dog for trying to hump other dogs, fire hydrants, or people's legs. We might train them not to, but the instinct will still be there, and it's there for a reason. And as for the silver screen as the hallowed altar of talent, "talent" doesn't only come in the Lawrence Olivier variety. If I go to see a Meryl Streep movie, then I'll judge her performance based on her handling of drama and whatever accent she's using; in a Bruce Lee picture, screen presence and martial artistry are a lot more important; with Nikki Cox, comedy and cleavage. And so on. Obviously, one can't judge every actor by the same standards. Meryl Streep would probably make a lousy porn actress, just as Racquel Darrian probably wouldn't have been the most convincing actress to play the Lili Taylor character in I Shot Andy Warhol.

In other words, web sites like mine aren't "getting behind" and promoting the objectifying nature of Hollywood's object lens any more than shoe companies are "getting behind" and promoting the bipedal nature of people. Objectification isn't a movement or philosophy -- it's the way the mind works. It's seeing things in terms of what's relevant to the viewer. And what's relevant when watching actors on the screen is (1) how do they act and (2) how do they look. Unless you know them personally, that's all you have to work with.

So does every actress have to shed her clothes just to make it in Hollywood? No, of course not. But if they look like Nikki Cox, people are certainly going to want and even expect it, and the opportunity for them to showcase their other talents may never come. No one's seriously clamoring for Janeane Garofalo to whip off her T-shirt, but neither do they let her within gunshot of any auditions unless she drops some weight first. And where and actress decides to bare it all matters, too. Getting naked in anything with the word "bikini" in the title pretty much destroys whatever credibility you might have had as a "serious" dramatic actress, but getting naked in a mainstream or art film might actually help jumpstart your career. Either way, it's ridiculous for an actress (or actor) to complain that the world doesn't appreciate them in the way they want to be appreciated. The world is under no obligation to appreciate them for any reasons but its own.

(Billy Corgan once appeared on The Howard Stern Show a while back and bitterly complained that his fans had abandoned the Smashing Pumpkins now that it had taken a new musical direction. But while he certainly shouldn't have to play rock forever, neither should he be surprised or feel betrayed if all his rock fans don't want to follow him into the world of electronica. The same goes for actresses. If an actress' fan base is people who want to see her naked, she really can't be surprised if no one rushes out to see her in a remake of Othello.)

Preaching from the mountaintop,

Golem

Good God you can sing for your supper can't you. Of course there is nothing wrong with human sexuality. Actually, there's nothing really wrong with your site just your opinions on the subjects.

It would be nice if we could just pass all human behaviours off as natural and gleefully accept the popular notion that men are animals who can't control their sexual urges but the fact is that that is b.s. It would be easier if we could believe that and alleviate people of their culpability but it isn't true.

The bottom line: if an actress or actor really would like to be judged on their acting skills and not wish to disrobe, they should have that chance. If they do want to that's fine as well. If they suck, they should try to improve or find another line of work. However, if say, Laura San Giacomo doesn't want to disrobe on screen should that really hurt her career? She will probably be penalized for it as she appears to have been on Just Shoot Me. The status Quo isn't necessarily correct. If you want to appreciate her looks, that's fine, but to say "Oh well, that's how people are" and yack at them when some producer has said they're too fat?

To accept the world as sexist is alot easier than trying to alter it. As Morgan Freeman noted in "7", apathy is a Hell of alot easier than effort. If actresses are forced to extremes just to do something they want, like acting, I guess that's just easier than trying to erase sexism. If men don't get their way, I suppose Janeane's comedy should take second place just to uphold the status quo which keeps her in a lesser position based on the whims of hairy-handed producers who actually don't know what the public wants. If they did, would movies like "Gone Fishin" among others ever be made? Why the Hell do they keep making Saturday Night Live spinoffs if nobody likes them anyway?

I really wish Laura San Giacomo would do on screen nudity. I don't know how the Hell she got away with doing that scene in "Nina Takes a Lover." But nude or not, I will continue to see her films and tv shows. At least to a point, I might wait until some of them come to video rather than waste a day at thetheatre. "Stewart saves his family?" Ugh!

Les

P.s;

If motion man can get away with full access, why not you?

Methinks you might have missed my point -- and perhaps even your own...

You say on the one hand that there's nothing wrong with human sexuality. Fine. But then you also insist that it needs to be altered or restrained when it comes to one's tastes in movies so that we might all better appreciate actors and actresses who want us to look past their physical appearance. And then you go back to conceding that some actresses (eg. Laetitia Casta) should be judged on different standards than other actors on account of them also being models, that "every actress with a c-cup should have at least one required nude scene". If I'm singing for my supper, then I've been doing it as a duet, my crooning friend.

Forgive my back-alley psychology, but it sounds like your motivation for watching certain actresses is as down-to-earth as most people's -- and you've been convinced you should feel guilty for it. "Yes, Miss February is attractive," you'll observe with as much detachment as you can muster, "but I should like her more for her mind. Yes, I like it when she does her nude love scenes on cable, but it's not right of me to do that. I'm exploiting her with my male gaze. By wanting her to work naked I'm forcing her to. I'm willing her into sexual slavery. I'm perpetuating the oppressive male-female paradigm. I'm objectifying her ... mustn't objectify ... lust is bad ... lust is dirty ... must ... chop ... it ... off ... must ... must ... I'M SORRY I PEEKED AT YOU IN THE SHOWER, MOM!"

Corny, but you get the idea. This notion that the mind is infinitely malleable, that apparent instincts can be curbed or re-shaped, is an ancient one, but it's never really panned out for anyone. One case that leaps to mind is the doctor who cut off a male baby's schlong back in the 70s and instructed his gullible parents to raise him as a girl. The theory was that all gender psychology was learned, so if you raise a baby boy as a girl, he'll in fact be a girl. Of course, by the time this kid became a teenager he was so abysmally miserable and confused (despite his female upbringing and all the hormones he was being pumped with) that he ended up trying to kill himself.

The other point is this: The world doesn't owe anyone a living. If an actress's career suffers because she doesn't get nude or her looks start to go (to wit, I've read somewhere that Felicity's ratings have been swirling down the toilet ever since Keri Russell cut her hair), it's not her audience's fault for losing interest in her. It's not her fault either -- she's under no obligation to cater to her audience's wants -- but she also has to accept that she might not be able to make a living doing something that no one wants to see. (Similarly, if I want the world to love me for my line of toxic Esperanto fortune cookies and not the nudie pix on my site, chances are I'm in for some disappointment.)

Well, that's all the song this choir boy's got in him for now.

The unlicensed psychiatrist is in,

Golem

P.S.: Who or what is "motion man"? If it's another site like mine, then the answer to you question is in the "AdultCheck" section of my "director's cut" hate mail page.

I have admitted I do have certain wishes and people I would like to see but nevertheless I seem to think more highly of them than you. Laetitia Casta is not an actress an therefore has no expectation to be judged by anything but looks. Models are meant for looks while actresses don't have to be.

Your site isn't the problem so much as your responses and opinions on the subjects at hand. Your reasoning is that if the status quo is such, than actresses should just shut up and starve themselves and strip and that because men are sexually insatiable creatures who cannot be curbed, the status quo will never change.

By that logic, a white man could say to his daughter, "no. you can't marry that black man because he's less likely ever to succeed in life than a white man. He may be smart, qualified and more decent than most, but black people just don't do as well. That's not his fault, it's just the way the world is, it's racist." He's not a racist of course, he's just unwilling to bother challenging the "way things are" and as long as people like him never try to alter things, they aren't likely to change. The man simply feels he's justified because that's what the status quo is wrong or right. If you missed the analogy, I suggest reading that over. Simplified version: If you know things are unfair, what good are you doing by telling anyone to shut up and accept it. It's much easier to be apathetic and uphold the status quo and so many will, especially if it alleviates responsibility or guilt.

I would like it if every actress with a c-cup or above had nude scenes written in their contracts, but I would never force that. That's really more of a comedic line and an example of why I should never be in power, I'd probably become hideously corrupt and the bodies of my enemies would surface in the river. If an actress wants to do nude scenes, so be it but she should not have to however, or have to worry about her career being at a standstill because the people in power are horny and think they can do whatever they want. That is THE point.

On a side note, who the Hell would watch a comedy just to ogle Janeane? That's a pathetic reason to watch, especially if the show isn't funny. If the show should fail, it should be becaue the show is unfunny, not because Janeane wieghs 140 lbs which is average for women in the U.S.

Don't lose your composure now.

Les

Les

Welly welly well, Les.

Again, as long as you yourself still wave the "different standards for different types of actresses" flag, then we're marching in the same army. The only difference between us, really, is that you see in your brand of thespian apartheid some sort of moral superiority and insist that "I think more highly of them than thou" even as you oblige actresses, models, singers, and anyone else performing in a movie to drink out of separate fountains.

To me that seems like a rather procrustean caste system of little practical use. You feel justified in judging Laetitia Casta's acting abilities by her looks more than her talent for drama because you know her to be a model. But what about, say, Uma Thurman? She started as a model as well (for Victoria's Secret, no less), but she also got an Oscar nomination. In fact, a lot of the more beautiful actresses of the silver screen started as models. Under your philosophy, shouldn't we judge Uma -- and the rest of Hollywood that has posed for the camera -- primarily for her looks, not her acting craft? And what about actresses that began as singers? If "proper" actresses should be judged for their acting, model-actresses for their looks, should singer-actresses be judged for their voices when they deliver dialogue? Surely every type of actress must have a place in your struggle for celeb-site correctness, your kampf.

All my site is saying is that if any actress is particularly attractive, then that attractiveness is likely to overshadow their other attributes unless those attributes are exceptional. "Models are meant for looks", as you say, but so are a lot of actresses who haven't necessarily worked as models. If it's morally permissible to focus on the looks of the former, then it's equally permissible to do likewise for the latter. After all, people are known by their strengths. If someone's more beautiful than convincing as an actor, then obviously it's their beauty that will get most of the attention. Sexual discrimination has nothing to do with it (remember that it was a while before anyone took pretty-boy Johnny Depp seriously as an actor). Which is why, at its core, praising Angelina Jolie for her dramatic performances while calling for another actress to get over herself and get naked already isn't inherently sexist, and your racism analogy doesn't really work. Nor does all the grandstanding about "if you know things are unfair, do something to change them" apply here, because there's nothing unfair about evaluating people according to their strong points.

A rather strange notion in your email is the insistence that the philosophy of my site is somehow denying actresses and models the chance to be taken seriously. "If [a playmate] wants to act, she deserves a chance," you write. First of all, no one "deserves" anything; Hollywood is a business, not a God-given right or welfare state. Second of all, who isn't giving Playboy playmates a chance in Hollywood? Look at their resumes and you'll find that most of them have film credits. Or perhaps you feel that I'm somehow not giving the other actresses on my site a chance -- but that, too, doesn't make much sense, since all those actresses are or were working, and therefore have already had or are still having their shot at greatness. My prescribing a shortcut for some of them through selective nudity is hardly denying them the opportunity to work fully clothed (which they're obviously already doing; otherwise, I wouldn't have to recommend that they get naked). "But they shouldn't have to if they don't want to," you keep repeating, to which I have to keep repeating, "Who says they have to? I'm just advising that they do."

And censorship? It's a rather peculiar First Amendment poster boy who demands free and full access to nudity on the one hand while on the other urges me to alter my opinion about celebrities to something he feels is more politically consonant with the times.

Oh, and to answer your question of "who the hell would watch a [bad] comedy just to ogle Janeane Garofalo", I'll go out on a limb and suggest "Janeane Garofalo fans". And I'll bet that most of the 50 people who saw We're No Angels were probably hard-core DeNiro fans. If that's a pathetic reason to watch, well, tell that to them.

Anyway, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, since I feel like you've been repeatedly missing the point and challenging positions I've never taken -- and I'm sure you feel that I'm doing the same. If it helps you to enjoy the site any more, I suggest you browse through it like most people browse through Playboy -- just go straight to the pictures and avoid the articles. ;)

Golem;

I'll write this as. slowly. as. possible. for.you. Since when is Laetitia Casta an actress? If she were, she could be judged against other actresses ut as long as she's a model, she is only evaluated on looks. She can be both as are many although this seems a tough one for you. If Uma or someone is both, they can be evaluated as both but not necesarrily at the same time. If she's modeling, then judge against other models. If acting, then against other actresses. Same deal with Courteny Love. She could be a bad singer and a good actress, but generally she isn't doing both at once. Artists should be judged in the medium they are working in and against those in the same medium.

Very.Slowly.Once.Again. You personally are denying no one work. But like the father in my prior example, you are supporting a status quo that you know is tacitly unfair and sexist. You say "get off the playing field" if you don't like the way they play ball when at the same time you realize the field is rigged and the game unfairly played. Michelle Williams' job is not to "look thin" but to act. Cathy Bates, Kate Winslet and Camryn Manhiem among, are good actresses regardless of weight. Michelle Williams may not be as good an actress, but a good actress need not be rail thin obviously. Just because Michelle Williams is pretty should not be used against her in an acting medium. Modeling, yes. Acting, no. There is a difference. But rule of thumb says her looks do matter you say? Again, you know that's not right. Because the status quo is one way does not make it right. The status quo once held that slavery was right and it was wrong then. Why can't you judge an actress as an actress as good or bad?

Point of interest, I'm usually harrassing people who actually do deny women work in some field among other folks. It's always fun if I can rope someone like you into e-mail converse.

I'm probably more attractive than you (Who knows, actually) But I'm no poster boy. I support free speech and expression because they protect us from dictatorial, pendantic people like Newt Gingrich who somehow reach power points. Even the KKK is protected because if the situation was reversed and someone like Newt was in power, people like Martin Luther King could be denied free speech. So I defend the right although you, like the KKK, may have no good opinions. I can still try to make people see reason. You don't have to listen.

Finally, you put me under "hate mail?" I'm hurt. I actually enjoy this recurring tete e tete (I hope I spelled that right). I was dissapointed when you turned out to be such a smug, sarcastic jerk, but I still looked foreward to this each morning. And after I praised the way you typically and calmly responded to people.

I'm usually having e-mail debates with someone, usually people who actually do deny women jobs, creationists and so on. Sometimes I bother people with attitudes that support these people. For me this is at least part game. with you more than others. I can keep going as long as you can if for no other reason than it amuses me. But since you seem to be wearying, you can stop the madness by not responding to this letter. Too bad, it was fun.

Les

Having just woke up a few minutes ago, I haven't yet cleared all the gunk out of my eyes, so parts of your letter haven't come into focus yet. Let's see what I can make out.

Laetitia. Since our little debate has been primarily about the plight of the actress and how I contribute to it in the larger scheme of things, and since it was you who had brought Laetitia up, I assumed you were aware that she has been in a movie (with Gerard Depardieu) and that you were trying to argue that she can and should be evaluated according to different criteria than "normal" actresses. It certainly didn't seem out of step with your earlier, half-joking assertion that any actress with a C-cup ought to be required to to at least one nude scene. In any case, it looks like I misunderstood your bringing Laetitia up. My bad.

The Evil Status Quo. Central to your whole gripe with me is the notion that I'm an enthusiastic philosophical supporter of the oppressive System that's been ruling Hollywood with a mailed, sexist fist for lo these many decades. Sure, I may not be pushing the hapless actresses into the ovens myself, you concede, but I gleefully and publicly use the belts, soap, lampshades and gold fillings that are the end products of their career genocide. I am therefore, you take pains to explain, no different in kind from armchair racists who in the big picture are every bit as guilty of the crimes they claim not to personally commit as the most avid Klansmen.

But as I've said many times now, your understanding of Hollywood is very different from mine. To me it seems a wee simplistic to imagine that the sole function of an actor is to "act" in the traditional sense. Actors are also hired for the way they look, and sometimes for the offscreen associations they bring to the part. If it was only about acting talent, then there's no reason why Dennis Hopper shouldn't be allowed to play the Michelle Williams character in Dawson's Creek. But obviously, for the sake of realism, an actor's look matters; if the part calls for an old Chinese man, then the actor had better look like one; if it calls for a young sexpot, then there, too, the actor had better fit the bill. So while acting talent is important to consider when evaluating an actor's merits, so too are his or her look and anything else he brings to the table. Which is why it's ridiculous to insist that there's something latently sinister and unfair in my public analysis of these things. Nor is there anything wrong or unfair about the public's fascination with an actor's image. Comparing it to the acceptance of slavery, as you seem fond of doing, is simplistically absurd and misleading.

How dare you put me on your hate mail page? My "From Cyberspace with Love" page is reserved for all manner of public criticism, not just the angry ejaculations of crackpots.

Why such a smug, sarcastic jerk? Some say nature, some nurture, but I believe you've made your position clear that it's never simply one or the other. ;)

Actually, briefly looking over our correspondence, I don't think I've been deliberately sarcastic except for the bit with analyzing your motives for watching certain actresses (the "peeking-at-Mom" thing). Possibly also the "skip the articles and just look at the pictures" advice. And these were motivated by the line "God you can sing for your supper can't you". I read this and thought, "If he feels my half of the correspondence is just so much self-rationalizing bullshit, why does he keep engaging me in this dialog?" That -- combined with the fact every other day I have to defend myself to somebody on the same, unchanging charge -- tends to leave me more of a sprinter than a distance runner when it comes to detached responses to my critics. As for our correspondence, while it had its charm, I think it's run its course. You've given me your position on my attitude in as many ways as you can conjure, and I've done the same. To pursue this one issue of ours would be beating a dead actress.

Nostalgic for our fling but knowing that it had to end,

Golem

I enjoyed your site, though I would never talk that way about people myself. The thing I appreciated most was finally seeing some appropriate critiquing of the hideous awfulness of so many hollywood boob jobs. I really like some of the terms you used in describing them... "rubbermaid rack", "corking her bat", "stuffing with confederate money". A few months ago I put up an anti-boob-job page myself:

http://home.pacbell.net/kie/no-implants.html

(A real domain name is in the works.) I recently updated it a bit, and made use of one picture from your site -- I had found the same image elsewhere, but yours was clearer.

I do have some disagreements with you... You sometimes rag on people for gaining a few pounds, but I would be as likely to disparage your typical celebrity body for being too skinny as for being too fat. I disagree with the negative things you say about feminists. I think some of the careers you ascribe to looks really do have more basis in talent than you give them credit for.

I notice you talk a lot about Janeane Garofalo and Uma Thurman. So I'll just throw this bit in: When "The Truth About Cats and Dogs" came out, every guy I know was talking about the "Uma or Janeane?" question. Just like the "Ginger or Mary Anne" question in the old days. And you know what? Every single guy I had this conversation with, except me, picked Janeane -- again, just like Ginger vs. Mary Anne. (The terrible secret of Gilligan's Island is that Ginger actually could not get laid, since every single guy in the universe prefers Mary Anne.) Now I thought this was bogus, since the movie was set up to present Janeane as the fake underdog (like Mary Anne) but in fact, given that bias, Uma was the real underdog. Hardly anyone I talked to actually found Uma attractive... and indeed, in that role, she looked gaunt and unhealthy, which I suppose is realistic since she was playing a model. But with all underdoggery aside, I think she not only came across as more attractive and more likeable than Janeane... she was also FUNNIER.

If I ever meet Uma, I will tell her so.

Janeane was cool in "Mystery Men", though.

My suggested minor celebrity, kind of outdated but worth looking back to: Patricia Charbonneau. Made me physically squirm in my theater seat... I've never had that intense a reaction to any other actress.

Paul

Hi. Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

Anyway, I finally got around to visiting your Anti-Implant page, which was pretty amusing. I have a link to it now in the "Other Stuff" section on my "More Celebs" page.

As for the weighty issue of actresses walking the tightrope between Delta Burke and Calista Flockhart, personally I don't usually care if this or that actress is a few pounds over or under their ideal camera weight; when I mention that an actress is getting a little too chubby for primetime, it's because, regardless of my own tastes, their proportions have entered a zone that could cost them their careers. In any case, I've also pointed out where a celeb's being too thin was probably a hinderance (eg. Kata Karkkainen), and have posted rejections for proposed celeb additions on the grounds that the celeb in question is just too damned thin for me.

On the issue of feminists, I don't recall anything specific I've said about them (whatever it was, I'm sure it probably had to do with Janeane Garofalo), so I'll offer this blanket criticism: Feminism, like all philosophical movements, started off with good ideas and noble intentions but eventually devolved into a kind of cult as it sacrificed its common sense for the illusion of solidarity and continued purpose. What began as a struggle for political, economic, and social equality has in many quarters been reduced to a mantra of female supremacy, creative history and etymology, frivolous harassment lawsuits, Goddess cults, and, as with most movements rooted in civil rights issues, an over-reliance on scapegoats.

Regarding the "looks vs. talent" issue, certainly a lot of people have felt that I bet too heavily on looks when it comes to predicting a celebrity's commercial success, a criticism which, in a world where there are thousands of Pamela Anderson sites and only one Kathy Bates site (assuming it's still up), is always surprising to me. An actress might be very talented, but the general rule is that unless she can be marketed as attractive as well, more often than not she won't get as much time in the spotlight as someone else with talent and beauty. Critics of this world order tend to forget that acting is as much a beauty contest as a talent show.

(When people argue to me that "it shouldn't be that way" or that "it doesn't have to be that way", I'm reminded of an Albert Brooks film where a desperate, lonely Albert Brooks asks something like "Wouldn't the world be great if loneliness and desperation were attractive qualities?" Obviously, to expect people to appreciate you on your terms and not their own is a little silly and solipsistic.)

I agree that The Truth About Cats & Dogs was rigged at Uma's expense: In the film's effort to hit us over the head with the "see the inner beauty, see the outer beauty" message, it tended to dress Uma down a bit (she looked gaunt and unhealthy, as you say). I'll have to watch the movie again to see if I agree that Uma's the real reason to watch it, but I wonder if your enchantment with Uma in the movie isn't more a reaction to the film's built-in prejudice against her than to her actual performance. (The movie counts on you rooting for the underdog, after all; perhaps you were just rooting for the "real" underdog, regardless of that underdog's merits.)

It took me a while to track down some Patricia Charbonneau pix (I don't remember ever seeing her before), and while I appreciate the suggestion, she didn't have quite the same effect on me as she apparently did on you. ;)

Regards,

Golem

Your nudity theory doesn't make sense. I have no problem with it otherwise than it just not being true to reality.

Take Julia Roberts, for example. Or Michelle Pfieffer. Or Alicia Silverstone. Or Helen Hunt. Ashley Judd. Cameron Diaz. Jodi Foster. Jennifer Lopez. Jennifer Connelly. Etc. Etc.

Some of the most successful actresses of recent times, in terms of being in movies that made money, and in terms of power to bankroll the roles they want.

They didn't get that way by being naked. Sex appeal plays a big part, sure. But it's not the same thing as showing cracks or nips (not that that's a bad thing). Mystique goes a very long way.

Julia Roberts seems the best example: Among the most popular and powerful of actresses, but she's never done a nude scene.

Neither has Cameron Diaz. Or Alicia (yeah, her career's not so hot right now, but she was hot for about as long as any actress ever is).

I love naked actresses, too. I love actresses who will get nude, like Julianne Moore, and Demi, and Ashley, and Jennifer Connelly. But all this really does is increase their notoriety.

What helps their careers is being in good roles in good movies, roles that bring out sides of their personalities that appeal to a lot of people, including their sexuality...but not necessarily their nude ass; roles in movies that make money, and win them awards, like Connelly's turn in A Beautiful Mind.

If your theory is just a satirical sorta joke or somethin made up for your website, well, then my bad.

There's not much of a need for a reply, since I doubt you could say anything in support of your theory that you haven't already said on your website.

But, man, thanks for such great sites. Really are some superior picture archives.

Take 'er easy, J

Hello Jack. Glad you like my little site.

And for the record, I agree that the "nudity theory" seems a little unrealistic and simplistic.

However...

As you wrote, popular movies with roles that showcase an actress' most appealing strengths are what keeps her career alive and well, but in most cases, an actress' most appealing strengths lie in her beauty and sexuality, which is why the most successful actresses tend to be the ones that everyone wants to nail. As good as Kathy Bates and Lili Taylor are, there's a limit to how far they can climb the upward path to Hollywood immortality. And as successful as Jennifer Connelly has become, all anyone could remark on when she appeared at the Academy Awards was that she looked horrible now that she lost all that weight and her breasts have shriveled up.

(On one of those E! True Hollywood Stories, a producer was said to have explained to Ally Sheedy that the reason she wasn't a bigger actress was that no one in the country wanted to have sex with her.)

Of course, sex appeal doesn't always mean screen nudity, as you point out. But it does have a lot to do with expectation. If an actress relies primarily on her charisma for her sex appeal, like Julia Roberts, then that's what her fans will expect of her, though the rest of the world may still judge her by her physical beauty. If an actress' appeal lies more in her chest -- whether in tight shirts or no shirt at all -- then fans and non-fans alike will expect to see it, and will get bored with her if they don't.

(To put it another way, to stay famous, you have to keep doing the thing that made you famous in the first place, as no one is usually interested in seeing you do anything else. The "Wassup" guy has to say "wassup" when he goes on tour -- and he does tour, believe it or not -- and when people get bored of "wassup", that's the last we'll ever hear of him. And unless she's very lucky, Shannon Elizabeth will probably always be the naked chick from American Pie, and will have to be naked again if she wants us to pay $10 to see her in another film.)

Bear in mind, too, that many an actress not content with her present level of fame has gotten naked on screen or posed nude for Playboy to revitalize her career. And some, like pre-Charmed Rose McGowan, have maintained a cult following despite a lack of mainstream success by frequently appearing nude in straight-to-video flicks.

In short, screen nudity may not be the career panacea it might appear to be on parts of my site, but it does a lot more than many movie-goers are willing to admit.

Bristling with pompous theories and platitudes,

Golem
The Iconophile

P.S.: By the way, although it was very brief, Julia Roberts has indeed appeared topless on screen according to The Bare Facts Guide.

Dear Golem,

I am a big fan of Rosario Dawson and have an appreciation for the effort you put into this wesite and for your taste.

I am also an Arab and have serious reservations about your comment about Arabs and bombs and synagogues. I think your analogy, although innocent in nature I'm sure, is completley out of line. The geo-political reference that you are making is a very serious one and is the source of much suffereing on both sides. Using it in such a trivial manner trivializes the pain of many.

Plus I don't think Rosario would approve of such a statement made in connection with her.

Peace to you.

Tamer

Hello Tamir.

I'm glad you like my little site, and appreciate your concern regarding my off-color remarks. Referencing Arab suicide bombers in trivial contexts may seem, well, trivial, but not making reference to them, especially in this political climate where speaking of "Arab terrorists" is considered racial profiling and "Saudi Arabia" is scratched out by sharpie ink, seems spineless. Not that I'm in the business of making political observations or anything -- I just write online like I (and most people) talk at home, where no subject is too taboo and no analogy too trivial.

Regards,

Golem

Hi Golem,

You hit the nail right on the head. You are in fact racially profiling. The fact of the matter is not every Arab, strike that 99.999% of Arabs, do not walk around with 'bombs under their belts' and yet it can be inferred from your statement that this is the norm. Also, speaking in the privacy of your home is one thing and posting a statement on a website for everyone to see is another. What this does is propagate a myth that I'm sure if you thought about for more than one second would realize is completely absurd. So not only are you believer in something that is completely false, you are helping to feed a stereotype that is really busting my balls.

Best

Tamir

The fact of the matter is not every Arab, strike that 99.999% of Arabs, do not walk around with 'bombs under their belts' and yet it can be inferred from your statement that this is the norm.

What this does is propagate a myth that I'm sure if you thought about for more than one second would realize is completely absurd.

Of course not every Arab is packing a bomb -- just as not every black guy in Compton is a gangster and not every white guy in Alabama a klansman. But enough of them are -- or support those who are -- to make travel in the Middle East, Compton, or the American South a risky proposition for some groups of people. If my comment seems to unfairly stereotype Arabs, keep in mind that the Arab track record in terrorism is pretty hefty reading compared to, say, the Eskimo track record, and that it's a rare clip in the evening news showing jubilant Japanese dancing in the streets to celebrate the exploits of yet another suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.

Also, speaking in the privacy of your home is one thing and posting a statement on a website for everyone to see is another.

Believing one thing at home but saying another in public is precisely the sort of thing I'd like to avoid on my site.

Regards,

Golem

Michael

For what it's worth ( I'm a novice on the net), Your comments hit the mark of sanity quite often, however, do you really think Jesus was encouraging us not to think? Is it not more likely that your response to ,"judge not..." is the stoopid ways that people use it, especially when they won't think. Anyway, happy to meet your acquaintance.

Richard

To answer your question of "Do you think Christ was encouraging us not to think?", while I wasn't looking to step on anyone's religious toes, I would have to say "Yes, of course." Let's face it -- Christ and the Christianity he inspired have been pretty vocal about their antipathy to reason. In Matthew 11:25 Christ thanks God for revealing his teachings to gullible dupes and not to wiser folk. Luther denounces reason as "God's worst enemy", explaining that

There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed... Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God.

On the other hand, perhaps you were really only asking about the "Judge not" quote and whether or not it can fairly be interpreted as "Think not". In Christ's case, where he's trying to stop an execution, what he's ultimately getting at is "Don't be a hypocrite -- kill not for sins when thou art thyselves sinners". So in that case, my answer to your question would be "No, Jesus is not saying 'Don't think'". Removed from that context, though, "Judge not" doesn't make much practical sense if taken literally, since no one can suspend the mental process of judgment; "Don't badmouth others and not expect repercussions" would be better.

Here endeth the sermon. :)

Hoping your question got answered somewhere in all this,

Golem

dear sir:

it is very offensive and insulting to the majesty of the most Blessed Virgin Mary to take an icon of hers and fill here face with the images of prostitutes. please be so kind as to remove it, or face the consequences of eternal punishment in hell for insulting the Mother of God

Dolores

Hello Dolores.

I think there might be some confusion about the purpose of my site's title graphic, which is not to insult the Virgin or Catholicism, but to satirize the idolatry of celebrities. Obviously, the actresses (who are not prostitutes, by the way) whose faces appear in place of the Virgin's are not the Mother of God or are otherwise divine or semi-divine, and that's the point. It's social satire, not religious polemic.

Salutations good sir,

The mathematics are quite grim. We have perhaps 80 years to live. My intention is not to meddle in your affairs but I can not but pose the following question: Where do you come off commiting hours and hours of your finite lifespan to this website(which I admit borders on classy; which is part of the whole problem since it takes so long to produce!)? Your talents could easily inspire thousands to contemplate the infinite wonders of the cosmos or the fragility and preciousness of life. But alas, you find yourself pouring hours into an endeavour that for most of your visitors is litle more than soft porn. How do you justify this?

Secondly, I would like to point out an issue which nowadays is litle more than a curiousity but may very well be very much relevant. By now you have no doubt guessed that I'm speaking of of course of the issue of the stance of the Catholic Church on the "spilling" of male seminal fluid. Perhaps you are not a catholic (I for one, am not), however perhaps the Pope and his clergy have a valid point, notwithstanding that they may or may not represent God(notwithstanding that you may or may not believe in God). You and I harbour litle doubt that your website is a catalyst for the afformentioned activity and should the position of the Catholic church indeed be "the will of God", I do not imagine you would be in good standing with the "Lord of hosts". What words have you on this matter?

Thank-you for your time and a response would be apreciated.

Margaret

Hello Margaret.

My site certainly does consume a lot of time (and money), and as hobbies go is pretty silly and frivolous. However, I think you overestimate the kind of influence I have; as you say, people come for the soft porn, not the text. But even if I had the influence of, say, a basketball player or a rock star, influence is not so plug-and-play as people like to assume, but is entirely conditional. People used to complain that Dennis Rodman should recognize that he's a rolemodel for kids and clean up his act, that he should use his powers only for Good; of course, his popularity and influence depended upon his being a freaky rebel, and if he dropped that in favor of a more Michael Jordanish image, his popularity would have also dropped as people searched for some other badass to worship. In other words, if I were to decide to use my influence for loftier pursuits, I'd soon find that influence gone.

Besides, I'm not sure that contemplating the universe, God, or whatever is necessarily a more appropriate (or worthy) pastime for everyone, and in any case it's the sort of thing that people should do on their own because it's in their nature to do so, not because they've been cajoled into it by others.

As for the issue of most men needing a Kleenex box when they visit my site, well, what of it? What the Pope says about how to live in this day in age is of scant interest to anyone but Catholics, as you suggest; to embrace his view of the world (flat or round) on the off chance that he might really represent God would be as ludicrous for me as embracing Jar-Jar Binks on the off chance that George Lucas might really represent The Force. I buy into neither one of them, and say, "Let that sperm fly!"

Regards,

Golem

Golem:

I'm afraid you misinterpreted my first paragraph. I was not commenting on the gargantuan ressources you direct into your website. But rather asking how you justify doing so given your finite lifespan. Shouldn't we all tend to more important matters?

It's interesting that you mention you feel people should ponder the mysteries of the universe based on their natural inclination rather than being "cajoled" into doing so. You may indeed be correct. But I may use this as an argument as well. For your website acts as an impediment to this very pursuit. Imagine the thousands that have loaded their browser with the hopes of finding enlightenment on the internet but at the last second, on a hormone driven whim, decide on your website instead. On the road of life your website represents a Chucky Cheese on the side of the road that men can spend their entire lives in and thus never reach where they could have gone.

On the issue of the Pope. Firstly, it's quite ridiculous to compare him and his religion to science fiction. Surely a religion with hundreds of millions of followers has greater legitimacy than that. Secondly, assuming that you did remove your website on the "off chance" that the Pope's views are God's views, what would you have to lose? Presumably nothing. This holds true because of the following. Eventually you will live out your remaing years and whatever you could have hoped to gain in your wildest flights of fancy from this website will effectively turn to the dust; since that is your fate as well. So you see, since there is nothing to gain froom "letting that sprem fly", better to desist from the pursuit and facilitation of it; for in the end the sum total of your loss is zero and you potential gain may very well be the countenance of God.

Sincerely

Margaret

Hello again Margaret. Here's a few quick responses to your last email before I go a-foraging for food:

1. Shouldn't we all strive to attend to more important things before we die?

   What's important for one person isn't necessarily important for another. Most people don't have a pressing desire or need to ponder the meaning of life; they've already formulated their own meaning and are doing well with it. Besides, if the whole world simply sat around meditating and waiting for Enlightenment, we'd all still be living in mud huts, and you and I would not have the technology to entertain this or any other debate.

2. Isn't your site encouraging people who might have been pursuing Enlightenment via the Internet to now fritter their lives away in frivolity?

   If they're looking for Enlightenment on the Internet, then they're already starting out with bad directions. Besides, if they decide to about face and visit my site, the responsibility is theirs and theirs alone. Nor is there any reason why they can't visit more than one site in the course of an online session. Moreover, your question could be reversed: what about all the people going online in search of hooters but who, suddenly seized by Catholic guilt, are wrenched away to www.vatican.net and waste their lives in a monastery contemplating what to do with all the masturbation going on in the world?

3. How can you compare the Pope with The Force, when Catholicism has so many followers to lend it legitimacy?

   If numbers is all it has to lend it legitimacy, then it's hardly legitimate. Besides, in its heyday, Star Wars probably had more fans than did the Pope.

   Remember, too, that early Christianity was widely regarded as a kind of Scientology by Jews and Romans alike -- a rip-off religion with no history or literature of its own (the New Testament had not yet been compiled) and flocked to only by gullible sheep. If Scientology doesn't get outlawed in the next century, then it, too, will probably be regarded as "legitimate".

   In any case, the point of comparing the Pope with The Force is that, if I don't believe in what either one of them are about, one is as legitimate as the other.

4. What have you really got to lose by giving up your site?

   My biggest hobby, for one thing. My self-respect for another. Why on earth would I give up anything to satisfy the whims of someone else's religion -- especially one that I don't much agree with? Again, the "just in case" philosophy is a little silly and self-defeating: Shouldn't I sacrifice my first born child, after all, just in case Molech is real and Yahweh is not? Shouldn't I offer up a prayer whenever I pass through a doorway, just in case the Roman gods of door hinges are real? Shouldn't I only fly east to get to Japan instead of west, just in case the world is really flat? Shouldn't I just kill myself just in case the physical world -- including my own body -- is indeed a false world created by Satan to distract us from the kingdom of God? Shouldn't I not kill myself just in case suicide is a sin? And so on, ad nauseam.

Regards,

Golem

Hello.

It appears you misunderstood me once more. In your reply you stated that among other things you'd be terminating your favourite hobby. In my letter I attempted to prove that no matter what your hobby represents, it has no ultimate value according to a very simple line of reasoning.

Since you are a finite being nothing you pursue that is purely material(that is to say lacking spiritual quality) has any value.

Allow me to elaborate. Millions of years pass, you come into being. A few decades later you return to dust. At this point we can choose to make 2 mutually exclusive assumptions. A: Your life(and all other life for that matter) was meaningless and there is no "afterlife". Or B: your life had meaning and will have effects on your "afterlife".

Returning to my original letter; If you shut down your website under assumption A you have neither lost nor gained anything(by assumption A nothing matters and there is no such thing as having gained or lost anything. Jumping off a cliff and winning the lottery have the same value). By assumption B, since Homunculus.com is most likely a purely materialistic website, shutting it down means little to you(since in any event you are destined to decompose), however you have potentially gained the grace of God.

I do not mean to debase you or your hobby, but to deligitmize any pursuit that is defficient in spiritual content. For regardless of wether God exists or not, only spirituality has any potential benefit whatsoever. Imagine if you will, stoping at a Hotel along a route that has a dubious endpoint. Behind the path you have crossed, all land is "falling into nothingness and leaving molten lava in it's place. You hope if you continue west refuge will be found. You know you must gather strength in the hotel in order to continue your journey. However you fail to stop your co-driver and he goes downstairs to the arcade room. Quickly, you don your bathrobe and proceed to locate him. You scold him for his irresponsibilty and the danger he could put you both in if he is unattentive at the wheel. He heeds your word and you hastily return to bed. Despite the fact that you have no idea where the journey will lead you to, you instinctively know that you must not engage in any activity that will be a detriment to Your website is nothing more than an arcade room under assumption B and a glorified catalyst for mental and physical masturbation under assumption A.

And so once more I submit that it is better to shut down your website either way.

Sincerely
Margaret

There's a problem with the symmetry of your two assumptions that makes their comparison a little questionable:

The first one -- "there is no afterlife, and even this life is a meaningless blip compared to a million years" -- presupposes an evolutionary or geological perspective from which the importance of specific human lives is not seen. The second assumption -- what one does in this life will have consequences for him or her in the next life -- presupposes an extremely personal perspective in which everything about a specific life is seen and is of the utmost importance. What's really being compared here, then, is not the existence and non-existence of an afterlife, as you seem to believe, but merely the vantage points of observation.

In order for the comparison to work, both assumptions would have to be made from the same perspective, but when that's done, the whole afterlife question becomes moot: From a remote, cosmic perspective, individual people are irrelevant, regardless of the existence of an afterlife; from a personal, here-and-now point of view, everything a person does is important in some way, again regardless of any afterlife. Either way, the existence or non-existence of an afterlife plays no part in the equation.

So if the meaning and merit of my life are really only a question of vantage point, they can't be used as a reason to shut down my site. This leaves only the afterlife as a reason to shut it down. But for that to work, I need to accept three things completely at your word: (1) there is an afterlife; (2) my position in that afterlife depends on my actions in earthly life; (3) the admissions board in the afterlife has strong, unfavorable policies regarding celebrity web sites in this life. Since I have no reason to believe any of that, I have no reason to manage my life and its hobbies in accordance with its alleged dictates. Mine is the "life is short -- enjoy it while it lasts" school of thought, which offers little room for worrying about what punishments other people imagine await me in hell for running my web site.

Reminding you that I already gave at the office,

Golem

For someone of your apparent intelligence (I would hate to flatter you seeing as how corny it would be but I can't dance around this one so...), it riles me that you can even utter the phrase "life is short enjoy it while it lasts". Surely you have already realized that that is pure rubbish. That is the point I've been trying to make this whole time(despite the percieved asymmetry of my analogy).

You can not argeue eith the following: there is no qualitative value of endless pleasure! Pleasure at best sustains the body and helps it cope with stress. But it can not be argued that there is any value in the pursuit of pleasure for it's own sake.

!!!!
$%^& [Margaret]

it riles me that you can even utter the phrase "life is short enjoy it while it lasts". Surely you have already realized that that is pure rubbish.

The rubbish content depends on how one lives. For people in prison and guys who have to pay alimony, life can seem way too damn long. For me, who once sat up with a start after working days on end at the computer and wondered, "What happened to the nineties?", life isn't nearly long enough. As ever, perspective is everything.

You can not argeue eith the following:

Take a look at some of the posted correspondence I've had with people regarding my site; you'll soon find that one can argue with just about anything.

there is no qualitative value of endless pleasure!

Not to keep beating the perspective issue, but if one's values are hedonistic, then endless pleasure would be the most valuable thing imaginable.

Besides, you seem to enjoy your notions of spirituality, which would be your version of "pleasure". By advocating endless spiritual pursuits, aren't you yourself advocating endless pleasure? And doing so, I might add, without any real conviction -- you're happy to have me take a stand for your view of what pleasure should be, but what have you done to advance your crusade for spiritual orthodoxy? Where is your virtual mountaintop from which you might chastise the ignorant masses for their un-Margaretness?

A lot of people used to ask me to add Alyssa Milano to my site, and I've always told them that I have no interest in Alyssa, that they'd have to seek her elsewhere. So they did, and everyone was happy. It seems to me that such people are spiritually better adjusted than someone who cannot accept that I'm not an Alyssa-phile, and rather than accepting my answer gracefully and moving on with his life, zealously devotes his time trying to convert me to Alyssianity.

So quit your email program, open up Word or Front Page (or whatever PC people use), and put together a web site that will show people the One True Faith you've discovered and be appreciated by one and all as a desperately needed beacon of hope for these troubled times. Call it "The Theophile" to underscore the site's spiritual opposition to The Iconophile. If you build it, they will come ... just not the same way they do at my site. ;)

Regards,

Golem

forfert

Je suppose que si vous ne lisez pas l'anglais (tout aussi je ne parle pas ou ne lis pas français), alors le texte sur le webpage pour Judith Godreche n'était pas clair, mais je ne suis pas Judith, et Judith n'est pour rien dans ce que ce site. Je suis désolé de anéantir vos espoirs. :-/

Dear Denise,

My name is Nathan and I live in Ohio. I really would like to meet you some day. I know you probably think that I am some kind of psyco or something. I am not I just think we would get along great. I am about 6'3 and weigh about 185. I would like to meet you some day.

Sincerely,

Nathan

It's been a while since I've gotten an email like this since I've put up my FAQ page, and the few I've gotten since are usually in jest. In case yours isn't, you should have a look at this and just substitute "Denise" for "Uma".

Je suis un fidèle admirateur et je trouve que tu es la meilleure et la plus belle.

Un admirateur français

i wood like to meet you my name is jamie i live in tennessee chattanooga

Justshootme1234

Hello Jaime.

I might be wrong about this, but it seems you've mistaken me for one of the actresses or models featured on The Iconophile (from your email address, I'm guessing you think I'm Laura San Giacomo). If that's the case, know that I'm just the webmaster, and have nothing to do with any of the people pictured or referred to on my site.

Sorry,

Golem

Hi, I just happened across your site earlier in a search for Leelee Sobieski web pages, you did a good job on your information, pics , and Movies. I also happened across your Hate mailish page, and I just want to know if you can hook me up with Sarah , the 23 year old Sobieski look alike, since i have no shot with Miss Sobieski.

thanks

Bill

Hi. Glad you like the site. :)

I don't know how serious you were about Sarah (once I remembered who the hell Sarah was), but I passed your request on to her just the same.

Good luck,

Cupid

Hello.

I don't know if you remember me, but I'm the guy with the harsh Leelee Sobieski site that you wrote to a while back. Anyway, your email was posted on my site as soon as I got it, and for what it's worth, you already have a fan:

Hi, I just happened across your site earlier in a search for Leelee Sobieski web pages, you did a good job on your information, pics , and Movies. I also happened across your Hate mailish page, and I just want to know if you can hook me up with Sarah , the 23 year old Sobieski look alike, since i have no shot with Miss Sobieski.

thanks

Bill

My mailbox is bloated with requests from weirdoes around the world asking me to hook them up with this or that celebrity, or from idiots who think I'm the celebrity, but this is the first time someone's asked me to hook them up with another visitor to the site. So I thought I'd pass it on.

Enjoy. :)

hi,i love you,Leelee Sobieskie.You are the most beautiful girl in the universe.take care. u have got great acting skills.I will help U and support you ,if U need it. thankyou.

Sunil

Thank you Sunil -- I probably will need your help, seeing as my films don't do so well at the box office. Perhaps we can talk about it over lunch -- now that I'm done with Les liaisons dangereuses, I've got a lot of free time on my hands for meeting my more ardent male fans. (Hey, I'm single, so why not?) We'll call it a date. Or, if dating a critically acclaimed but still minor American actress makes you uneasy, you could always just send me a check. (I don't want to tell you how much to write it for, but bigger is always better.)

There is just one problem, though: I am not Leelee Sobieski, her agent, official webmaster, or anyone else connected to her in any way. (One would think this would be apparent from the site's commentary alone.) I'm just some guy with a Mac.

But don't let that stop you from writing the check. Remember: Bigger is better.

Love and kisses,

Golem Sobieski

Harold

Hello Harold.

You raise some interesting points:

Your real motive is money.

This is only partially true. My full motive is this:

1. Years ago, with different web hosts, all the pictures on my site were freely accessible, and eventually they started to generate so much traffic that the web hosts got involved and told me to either install an adult verification page or remove all the pictures. Their stated concern was the legal entanglements that could result from minors trafficking the site, but they seemed even more bothered by all the bandwidth usage, and programs like AdultCheck are like a bandwidth tourniquet because most people are turned off by them and they leave without downloading any more files.
2. Meanwhile, all this traffic was also costing me an extraordinary amount of money every month, and if an adult verification page could help defray that cost, so much the better. ($42.50?! The last time I looked -- when I set the page up -- I could expect only nine or ten bucks.)
3. The laws pertaining to sites like mine change every few weeks. One moment the law says all adult sites are required to have adult verification pages, the next that law is repealed, and then the cycle repeats. Better to play it safe.

Near as I can tell, they use 'em to sell passwords. Whether or not AdultCheck is genuinely concerned with childproofing the Internet is irrelevant, just as it's irrelevant whether or not the ER surgeon truly cares about your individual well-being as he pulls the bullets out of your stomach; both of them are businesses, after all, and both need to make money in order to continue providing their services.

If you show small pictures of nude actresses to people without Adult Check, the government won't put you in jail. But if you show slightly larger versions of those same photos, they will?

I get away with what I can. No one told me anything about how to handle the thumbnails, and since the whole AV thing was not my idea to begin with, I do the bare minimum needed to comply and keep the web hosts satisfied. Also, if the pictures were only slightly larger than the thumbnails, neither you nor any other kids would have much interest in seeing them anyway, and this whole discussion would be moot.

Learn how to spell!

As long as you were able to figure out what I wrote, I'm a happy camper.

In any case, I hope this answers some of your questions, real and implied. If not, I'm sure mine is not the first AV site you've visited or written to; perhaps the other webmasters will have answered more to your liking.

Want to know what you can do with your AdultCheck?

Ron

Sure, I would love for you to tell me what I can do with my AdultCheck. But more than that, I'd love to know what inspired you to take time out to write me about alternative uses for AdultCheck rather than simply moving on to another site that doesn't use it. Feel free to use whatever charts, graphs, or other visual aids you deem necessary for your presentation.

What inspired me is utter hypocrisy. First of all, the site I looked at had adult pictures and general pictures, amongst others. The adult section would at least make a little sense using something like adult check, but you make it necessary to use adult check to view all the pictures. Why? The hypocrisy part is because people such as yourself claim to use adult check to keep the youngsters out. Bullshit!!! It makes you money, pure and simple!!!

Ron

Hmm. I get the sense that you haven't had a glance at the AdultCheck section on my FAQ or hate mail pages, where this very issue is addressed ad nauseam. Basically, the site has had a freely accessible "general" pix and clips section in addition to the AdultCheck section for years. In August, though, two things happened: Scour.com spidered my site and sent my webhosting bill through the roof (and used up so much of my bandwidth that I was unable to upload new material to my own site), and some asshole claiming to represent a laundry list of adult publishers began badgering me with ultimatums and ratting me out to the legal department of major magazines. As it turns out, the guy doesn't actually represent anyone in any official capacity -- he isn't even a real lawyer -- but having all the picture and preview galleries sitting out there for him to index and forward to real lawyers was forcing me to drop celebrities from my site one by one. Meanwhile a rival webmaster was busy ratting me out to still other magazines, and by the end of the month I was up to my eyeballs in legal threats and unpayable webhosting bills. The honeymoon had come to an end, and I had to either put everything behind AdultCheck or shut down the site altogether.

"But why do you still have 'general' and 'adult' categories if both need a password?" you ask. The short answer: That's the way the program I wrote and have been using to generate the HTML for years now is set up, and even if I get the time to go under the hood and change it, I'd still have to reorganize and rename all the files I currently have on the site -- some four gigs worth of stuff -- and upload it all again. There just aren't enough hours in the day for that. Besides, most people come here looking for nudes, and don't want to waste time sifting through a bunch of non-nude pictures in their quest for tits and bush. Separating the categories this way lets them do just that.

Let's see, what else? Oh yes, the "save the children" issue. I think I've been pretty open in my answers to this sort question before: No one but overprotective mothers and lawyers looking for another payday really gives a rats ass about kids turning to salt because they saw a nipple on my site. I know I don't. Forget the kids -- the issues here, as always, are bandwidth and lawsuits.

"And money!" you shout. "Don't forget about the truckloads of ill-gotten porn-money!" Ah yes, the money. Every time AdultCheck sells a password to someone referred to them by my site, I get a portion of that. But since I still have to work two jobs just to keep my much-besieged hobby afloat, the AdultCheck money -- while vital to the survival of the site -- ain't exactly buying me any yachts. Or cars. Or clothes. Or food. Or anything else except another month of webhosting.

Anyway, I don't expect that any of this will make you any happier, but perhaps it'll at least explain where I'm coming from.

yer a commie. i hate commies, stupoid adult check, thats just there for some damn compnay to make money..there is a thousand ways to check someones age without buying a fuckn "pass"..fuck them and fuck you for supporting them.

deadpool42

Two things, comrade: First, I think you mean to call me something more like "capitalist flunky of imperialist ruling circles", not "commie", since it's the commie that gives everything away for free. Second, I think I've made it pretty clear on my AdultCheck page and elsewhere that my concern is not so much age as bandwidth; a pay-per-password service like AdultCheck can help keep my bandwidth down to something I can almost afford, whereas an allegedly free service cannot. Back when not too many people knew my site existed, everything on my site was freely available, but as the site's popularity grew, my own webhost told me to either get an AVS, buy a server of my own from them and then cough up the cash for the increased bandwidth, or get a new host. So there we are. In the meantime, I'm sure there are plenty of other, less trafficked sites out there still offering pix for free; you'll probably be a lot happier sticking to them.

the only reason i hate those adult checks is because they dont work..believe me, i have like 10 passwords. why dont you just charge yourself?? that way, you can use the extra cash to beef up yer bandwith. id pay directly, but there is no damn way im paying someone just to prove my age.

deadpool42

Hi again.

The reason I don't charge people directly is that I never wanted to be involved with the whole "business" aspect of the site. For me, the site's a hobby, and I'd like to keep it that way as much as possible. As it is, it's hard enough staying up to date with the celebs already on my site while still trying to add new ones to the fold; handling people's credit card numbers and fielding angry emails from people when things don't work right would siphon off what little time I have to work on the site. So if someone like AdultCheck is available to take that tedium off my hands, whether it's in the name of "age verification" or anything else, I'm happy to let them do it.

Why take the time to point out you're a rotten capitalist swine trying to make a buck? Because you spend time answering and you need a hobby.

P.S. Rotten capitalist denotes no animosity to capitalism, only wanna bes that aren't in the seven figure range yet.

Brazenhsy

Why take the time to point out you're a rotten capitalist swine trying to make a buck? Because you spend time answering and you need a hobby.

Question asked, question answered. But as for needing a hobby, I've already got more than I can handle at the moment -- the site's one of them.

P.S. Rotten capitalist denotes no animosity to capitalism,

Not to worry -- I think only English-speakers would be confused by that description.

only wanna bes that aren't in the seven figure range yet.

As that would be most of the world, I guess I'm in reasonably good company.

Вся власть кулакам!

Golem
Kulak Extraordinaire

Regarding the Adult Check bullshit. All attempts to legislate the need for this have failed. You cannot be required to block your site from minors. As for the money, of course you have your site on this sort of server so you can make money. put in on www.50megs.com and the whole thing is free. you dont pay for bandwidth. So, no prosecution, no bandwidth cost, gee take the damn adultcheck down. The internet ORIGINALLY WAS meant for the FREE exchange of ideas-- not commerce.

Mike

Thanks for the tip, Mike. Unfortunately, a site like mine can never be on a "free" web site like 50megs.com, since:

• Free sites are never really free; to get rid of the annoying pop-up ads, you have to pay for a "premium" plan.
• Free sites are notoriously unreliable, as their allowed bandwidth (never mentioned in the online brochures) is very limited.
• Free sites have very limited space. 50megs.com offers a 100 MB plan, but my site is over 6 gigabytes.
• There's never anyone to call if something goes wrong. And all sites have something go wrong, free sites more often than others.

• Attempts to legislate the need for online age verification have actually succeeded, but get repealed -- and then the cycle repeats. But even if it never becomes law, having AdultCheck in place is one less thing I have to worry about when I get hassled by lawyers from time to time. And even if that never happens, I think I've made it pretty clear on my site that it's not age that I'm worried about so much as bandwidth.
• I'm not sure what you mean when you say that my site was moved to a Unix server so as to make money, as if Unix were some sort of wealth-generating sampo. I can only assume you know something about Unix that I don't.
• As for what the internet was originally meant for, one thing it was not meant for was pornography. If you truly feel the need to stick to what you figure the net was originally about, then you really have nothing to complain about as far as my site is concerned, since the ideas there are all free; it's the bandwidth-sucking porn that requires a password.

Golem

Robert

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Your message had been languishing on my seldom-used laptop before I noticed the problem and transferred it over to the desktop computer.

Anyway...

Like you, I once thought Patricia looked better than her sister, but since then I've come to the conclusion that the only thing Patricia really has over Rosanna is youth. You and I will probably never agree on the merits of their faces, but if you take at look at Patricia's nude scene in Lost Highway and compare it with Rosanna's in, say, The Wrong Man, I think you'll find that Rosanna is actually in better shape than her sister.

I don't know. Perhaps we won't agree on that, either. To each his own, I guess...

Wonder9668

Hello.

Given the rest of the commentaries on my site, I thought I went pretty easy on Valerie; what mild criticisms I had were more based on her career and marriage than on her rounding face. And if you do indeed look like her, even now, then you're probably one of the better looking people you know. However, in Valerie's case, the lack of dangerous sharp edges on her face only adds to her childlike cuteness, which has severely limited the number and types of roles she's been able to play. (She's often complained in articles that the public doesn't see her as "sexy" or "womanly", and now that she's undeniably older it doesn't care to see her much more than it does Michael J. Fox or Gary Coleman.) A chubbier face might be fine in the real world, but on TV it's usually career kryptonite.

Sam

Sorry you didn't much care for the comments on my Bjork page. I suspect that at the root of your dissatisfaction with them is the expectation that they would be more of a proper biography when in fact they -- like most of the comments on The Iconophile -- are no more than my personal impressions. (I thought that was fairly self-evident on the Bjork page, but perhaps it isn't.) Moreover, you seem to have expected that any public observations about a musician should only be made by another musician, not a consumer. But again, The Iconophile is more of a Beavis-and-Butthead, "Everyman" sort of look at the popular (and not so popular) icons in the celebrity pantheon, and the criteria of the unwashed masses for what's good and what's not in a band tend to run a little different from the criteria of other musicians. (A choreographer might justifiably feel that Showgirls was the greatest film of the decade, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the viewing public will or should agree with him.) Besides, most "professional" articles about musicians or actors are not written by other musicians or actors, so to expect this from a homespun website is probably none too realistic. And as for the accuracy of my comments, there's nothing in them offering themselves as facts, so the question of accuracy is moot.

Hoping this clears things up,

Golem

in reference to your bjork page --

How bout just plain "your a friggin DICK"

Opiadream

Thanks much for the insight. Still, I think you'll agree that it was a little vague; I can think of all sorts of reasons why I might be a friggin' dick, but which way did you have in mind?

Regards,

Golem

Mostly it was that sad piece you wrote about Bjork being 'kookie' and 'corny' and probably being forgotten in a few years.You see sparky,its like this.People who have a history of working with cutting edge producers and musicians,and also influence other musicians (notice I say musicians and not other pop acts) have more staying power than you obviously will ever realize. You also don't make a critically acclaimed soundtrack for a movie that you have won awards for best actress by being 'kookie' and 'zany' Its called talent.More talent than you are capable of seeing. Bjork will still be around when your website is long forgotten.

Opiadream

I think your indignation might be based on a misreading of my page, which is about Björk's place in the public eye and memory, not about her talent (which my page frankly acknowledges) or influence on other musicians. And to that extent, it doesn't much matter how many awards were heaped up on her for Dancer in the Dark, a movie whose audiences, regardless of what you or I may think of the film, did not include many beyond the critics who went to review it. If it hadn't been for her much maligned dead swan dress getting goofed on in magazines and on E!, most people wouldn't know that Björk was still alive.

And I say that matter-of-factly, not as a put-down. You can insist on her merits all you like, but the reality remains that -- in this country, at least -- her music is not well known and thus easily forgotten. As for words like "kooky", I'm not sure I understand your objection, since Björk's fairly outspoken about avoiding anything normal and commonplace and in any case has often been described as "kooky" in the press. Moreover, people can and have made critically acclaimed soundtracks for being kooky -- indeed, it's a rare film that gets made these days without Danny Elfman's name on the soundtrack credits.

To put it all another way, if a tree -- even a talented one -- makes music in a forest and no one hears it, does it still make a sound? In this country, the answer is "No". Tough breaks, but that's how it is.

Regards,

Sparky

remember me? the guy that bitched you out about shannon elizabeth? well i feel the need to continue..I was looking through your Björk info just for fun and you mention Rammstein and their stint of popularity..whoa what the fuck are you thinking? stint my ass, there as popular as ever..jesus fucking christ you dont know when to stop do you? over the top 80's retro? heres some advice pal, its called industrial music. Who cares if they dont sing in English? does it offend you? does it make you feel uneasy? And another thing, i wouldnt describe their music as [fun and kitchy]..the songs have meaning if you would take the time and look...you are as ignorant as they come

-Uwe-
Der Vater Aller Spiegel
www.herzeleidsehnsucht.cjb.net

I was wondering how long it would be before you found my Björk page's Rammstein comments...

But you must admit that you, as the webmaster of a Rammstein fan site, probably don't have the most objective perspective on Rammstein and their significance here in the U.S. Despite what you or I might think of the band (and by the way, I like Rammstein as well, although I don't base my life on their teachings as you apparently do), Rammstein does not enjoy the same public fascination it did during its Du Hast days except, perhaps, among Black Trenchcoat types. They may still be popular in some circles, but without the heavy rotation on the radio that they used to have, they're certainly not as popular as they were.

As for the "industrial" label, that term's become as loosely defined as "alternative". Whatever the label, though, Rammstein's sound has a lot in common with 80s pop, just as a lot of Nine Inch Nails did. Whether or not the lyrics have meaning doesn't make the music any less 80s-ish. (Especially in non-German-speaking countries, where the radio-listening and MTV-watching public doesn't always have a Berlitz pocket dictionary handy.) "Industrial" may be more fashionable to use, but "80s retro" is what it sounds like, and so it shall remain on my page.

And I think you missed the point of my foreign language comment, which is that we judge American/English music and foreign music by different criteria; just as we grant foreigners a certain amount of leeway when it comes to social faux pas, things that would be sneered at as corny or passé in mainstream American music are often given a pass (or even looked at as quaintly charming) when the music is in another language. Hence the conditional popularity of bands like Dead Can Dance -- many people think they sound cool and mysterious until they realize that the singer is English and simply making all the words up, whereupon they find the band silly and new-agey. (For the record, I like Dead Can Dance, nonce words and all.) The point, then, is not that there's anything wrong with foreign language music; all I'm saying is that its popularity follows a slightly different set of rules than English-speaking music does.

Even more ignorant than they come,

Golem
Das Ikonophile
Der Vater aller Hassenpost
http://www.homunculus.com/

Just checked out your site for the first time.... Pretty cool. I just wanted to say one thing. You seem to feel that Bjork will be an unknown in a few years, although you feel she has talent. I beg to differ. I graduated high school in 1988, and being a typical metalhead, I knew very little outside the world of Motley Crue, but I still had heard of Bjork. At the time, her band was the Sugarcubes. While I have to admit I've always had a crush on her, I have never bought an album of hers, but I HAVE heard occasional songs, even now that are at least worth listening to. I think this lovely lady will be known for years to come!!

Mikey

Hi. Glad you like the site.

I agree that most of us have heard a few songs of hers -- mostly from her Sugarcubes days -- and many of us have probably heard one or two songs from her early post-Sugarcubes career as well. But without frequent play on the radio or MTV, those songs have largely been forgotten in this country except by people who thought she was cute or the comparatively few people who were into her music (these last being mostly critics and other musicians). Which is too bad, since I'd like to see her a lot more in the media than I do, but dem's da breaks.

J.

Eh? Oh. Actually, when I wrote that she ought to fire her present manager, all I meant was that her visibility in the Hollywood pantheon was pretty low, that I had seen her in nothing apart from the "Delta Knights" flick. (She seems to be popping up in all kinds of things nowadays, but she wasn't then.) Whether or not she had a manager back when Mystery Science Theatre was still on and goofing on her or not I'll never know. But thanks much for the Charmed update.

Justin

Don't think I haven't tried ... but to each their own, I guess. :)

Regards,

Golem

Jeff

Thanks much for the suggestion, Jeff. However, since a pulse was never one of the requirements for induction into the site, and since I'm still interested in her, even if you are not, here she shall remain.

Regards,

IdleHand

Sorry- I didn't recognize any of the others girls as being deceased. If so, maybe you need a new category, such as "Disposable AND Dead". That should really open things up for you.

I'm not sure I understand your insistence that my fandom of Lana's b-movies should cease now that she's dead. Marilyn Monroe's been dead for decades, after all, but I certainly don't think people (including Lana, by the way) ghoulish for still being Marilyn fans.

Regards,

IdleHand

Maybe I'm mistaken. I couldn't find Marilyn on your site. Are any of the other women on your site deceased?

Why does Marilyn have to be on my site to make it OK for Lana to be there?

And as to whether or not there are any other celebrities on my site currently pushing up the daisies -- who knows? If you wait long enough, I'm sure the body count on my site will rise, if that's what's important to you. My interest is in the celebrities' work, regardless of what state the actresses themselves are currently in -- alive, dead, young, old, employed, unemployed. Lana's own official web page is still up and running; perhaps you should yell at her webmaster for not featuring other deceased celebrities to satisfy your morbid sense of affirmative action. Even better, you can go straight to the source of the problem and give Lana's corpse a good tongue-lashing on how she should have her site run.

In any case, if you find my site so objectionable, you should probably move on to some other site where none of the featured celebrities have recently expired.

Regards,

IdleHand

Psychosax

Hello Psychosax.

Actually, I do compare Unhappily with Married -- insofar as I say that the former is generally looked at as a rip-off of the latter. (The two shows were created by the same guy, after all.) Moreover, I don't say that Married sucked -- I say that it had its heyday and then it started to suck. (Testifying to that is the fact that Married used to be a top-rated show, but in its last years most people didn't even know it was still on.)

The point I was trying to make is that Unhappily (which has already been canceled) was never a popular show, largely because it was seen as a mere imitation of Married, a show which itself was no longer popular. In other words, Unhappily was doomed because it was ripping off a formula that people were already tired of. And as a result, Nikki Cox -- who should be enjoying an over-hyped career like all the other nymphets of the WB -- is instead bailing water on the sinking ship Norm.

Anyway, I hope this clears things up.

Regards,

Gene Siskel from beyond the grave

P.S.: Anyone in the role of Audience is automatically Siskel and Ebert. You yourself were in that role when you formed an opinion regarding my site. The only difference is that Roger Ebert plays "Siskel and Ebert" for a living. ;)

Ken

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my commentary, but while there was much that was great about 24 -- it was intelligently written, the dialog and acting were good, it was convincing despite the unlikelihood of some its plot elements, it had a refreshingly gritty, realpolitik edge to it, and, most remarkably, it was suspenseful despite the fact that we've all seen variations of its story countless times before -- it was mostly true of only the first half of the series. Watching it, I felt as if they had crafted the first part of the series with great care, as one would a pilot episode, then rushed to finish the second part once it was announced that the show would in fact remain on the air for all 24 episodes. I watched the second half largely out of loyalty to the first half, and half of the second season largely out of loyalty to the first season.

Anyway, the point was that, while it was Elisha's cleavage that got me to stop channel surfing for a moment, it was the show itself that kept me watching. It's just unfortunate that the last half of the series did not live up to the promise of the first half.

Golem

Patrick

Hello Patrick. Thanks much for your comments. A few quick responses to them:

• Lies and sour grapes. "Used Tissues" is a site I put together as a sort of soapbox to spout off my two cents on the appeal, fame, and career success of various actresses and models I've "grown up with" while sitting in front of the TV for lo these many years. Since I'm not in the entertainment business myself and have no stake in it, I can afford to be as brutally and crudely honest as any other couch potato absently commenting on his entertainment.

  Not that I'm always especially critical of the actresses featured on my site. Some I really like physically, but have to concede that their careers haven't exactly set the world on fire. Sometimes I really only like part of them, and this was the case with Tracy -- I'm not normally an ass-man or leg-man, but when I saw her in Bikini Summer 2, she became one of my reasons to sit through the whole silly movie every time I saw it on cable.

  Anyway, since there's nothing on my Tracy page offering itself as fact, it really can't be said to be spreading lies. And if I'm critical of Tracy's face but not of the faces of other "unattainable" actresses, it doesn't follow that my comments about Tracy are rooted in bitterness, or that I'm trying to rile or otherwise distress her. (I never imagined that my site would even come within her -- or your -- notice.) I'm not smitten by all actresses and models equally and for the same reasons any more than anyone else is, including you, and this wouldn't be much of an opinion site if I turned to empty cheerleading for every actress on it simply to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. That's what the E! channel is for.

  (Imagine if Roger Ebert gave rave reviews for every movie he saw. What'd be the point of reading them?)

  Of course, if Tracy goes on to become an international megastar and a household word based on her face and dramatic prowess alone, then I'll certainly be happy for her. Mystified, but happy.

• Recent credits and legitimate work. Some actresses are easier to keep track of than others, and the filmographies of some of the actresses on this site get updated only periodically as I become aware of the new credits. But thanks for the heads up. :)

  I'm not sure why you segregate your sister's work into "legitimate" and "illegitimate" categories, though. If her films were snuff movies or kiddie porn I'd understand, but tits and bush in film hardly seem "illegitimate", especially these days. (It almost seems required at the Academy Awards.)

• Better pictures. Any pictures (or news) you'd care to send for posting on this site will be gratefully and greedily accepted. Perhaps I will indeed come to like her face more. But even if I don't -- my opinion of her comes not just from computer scans, after all, but from her films and magazine photos -- the more pictures of her I can post, the more others searching the web for her name can judge for themselves and may like her.

Regards,

IdleHand

The next day, Patrick did indeed send me a picture of Tracy — and I have to admit, her face does look better in it than in all the other photos I've seen of her. The reason, I think, is that the deep lines in her face — the ones I refer to in my commentary about her — are scarcely visible in the photo. (I tell you, whoever invented airbrushing deserves to have a solid gold monument in his honor erected where the statue of Liberty now stands.) But regardless of what it took to get her to look like she's on the cover of Maxim, the fact remains that, as her brother so adamantly insisted, she can look better than I've seen her.

Tom

Alright, I admit it: I was weak. Perhaps I confused liking American Pie with liking the girl. I don't know. I feel so cheap now, and so ashamed...

Thank you for reminding me of my civic duty and committment to only quality obscure actresses.

Looking for a shame-management program to enroll in,

Golem

fan2 (fn)
n. An ardent devotee; an enthusiast.
[Short for fanatic.]

One day I was looking for info on Shannon Elizabeth, I typed in her name for a search and your site came up under the results..I thought it was just another fan site devoted to her..I knew something was wrong when I saw you got her birthyear wrong..1973? What the fuck are you smoking? Try 1976 slappy..As I read more and more, the more I got annoyed with you..How can you say she has a "Joker-like" smile, enormous teeth, and a gum-filled mouth? Let me guess, your girlfriend doesn't reach those attributes, so since you think that she is "perfect", then whoever doesn't have that should have negative criticism..Or maybe better yet, you don't have a girlfriend, and you're just bitter to all women..Personally, I think Shannon has one of the most beautiful smiles, but you don't seem to think that..Then you go on to the most talked about subject, her breasts..Why can't a girl have big tits but not accused of having implants? Not everyonehas an A-cup pal..Or maybe you just have bad eyes..And who cares what Howard Serman, well he's in a class all his own..Remember though she doesn't always have the geek fetish in her movies, try Scary Movie..she was a stuck up snob, way outta your league pal..Or Tomcats, Seamless, and Dish Dogs..think before you speak buddy..By the way, her new movie is called 13 Ghosts..I think you should change that

-Uwe-
Ich bin die Stimme aus dem Kissen
www.herzeleidsehnsucht.cjb.net

Hello Uwe. Thanks much for all the comments and questions, although it seems you've already answered most of them yourself. For what it's worth, I'll add my two cents into the mix:

Shannon's age. The actual year of Shannon's birth is in dispute; from what I've read, Shannon says one thing and her drivers license says another. But if it makes you happier, I've included both ages on her page.

Shannon's breasts. "Why can't a girl have big tits but not accused of having implants?" I don't know if you've had a look around the site, but there are lots of big tits featured on it whose authenticity is not in question. Nor is every boob job so easy to spot. But Shannon's is. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- half of Hollywood is stuffed with silicone, after all -- but just as it made Anna Nicole Smith look silly when she kept denying what was obvious to everyone, Shannon would come off a lot better if she'd just fess up already and stop asking the world to pretend along with her that she simply hit the gene pool lottery.

Shannon's smile. She has a cute half-smile, but her full-faced grin is a little unsettling. But to each his own.

Fandom. Maybe I'm missing something, but my Shannon shrine seems more "ardent" and "enthusiastic" than many I've seen.

Geekophile. Of course not all of Shannon's films cast her as a geek-fetishist, just the ones that anyone saw (that is, the ones that count). Scary Movie would seem to be an exception, but its commercial success was more indicative of the public's wanting the new flood of teen horror flicks satirized than of its actual fondness for the film itself, which is largely why so few people bothered to see Scary Movie 2.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that the time-honored nerd-gets-gorgeous-girl formula, which worked so well for the American Pie series and the Kevin Smith flick, will probably be the formula behind the bulk of Shannon's more popular films, if only because it makes her character more important to the story. (She's not just the Girl in the movie now, she's the miracle of the unattainable Goddess made attainable.)

Inside the mind of Golem. With such a clear, penetrating gaze into men's souls as you seem to possess, I can only hope you're getting paid your weight in gold as one of Christendom's most astute minds in the field of psychiatry, and that your Rammstein fan site is your way of keeping a watchful finger on the pulse of today's youth.

13 Ghosts. Here, at least, we're agreed. For some reason my HTML program deletes the first word of movie titles whenever it's a number, and sometimes I forget to correct the mistake before I generate the page. Mea culpa.

Well, das ist alles for now.

Slappy
Das Ikonophile
Ich bin die Stimme der Libido des Publikums
http://www.homunculus.com/

Josh

Hello Josh. Sorry to see you didn't care for the site.

About my fandom, though: I would say that it's the fan who can recognize his idol's shortcomings and hypocrisies and love him or her all the same; it's the sycophant who pretends they aren't there and expects everyone else to also.

But even if I weren't a fan, what difference would it make? Are you suggesting that only fans are entitled to their opinions and can write about Janeane? There are plenty of sites on the net where she's lauded to the heavens and hailed as a goddess among mortal men; you would do well to confine yourself to those sites.

What I wanted to ask you is where do you get off requesting Jeanne Garafalo to "show her tits"? I realized after navigating your site a little that you are a porn page of some sort so is that why you want nude images of her, so that you can post them and possibly make money?

I enjoyed what you had to say in your article right up to that point. I was merely searching the web for info on Jeanne when I clicked on a link to your site, and it was nice to read someones honest opinion, but to then counter all that criticism with a lewd request belittled all that you had previously said. I'm not a die hard feminist, but I do not like to see others disrespected callously. And your comment was highly disrespectful. Do yourself a favor and edit yourself, sir. I won't deny you the desire to see whoever's privates, but I would ask you be a little more respectful and not present these desires to everyone. Others do find them offensive and sexist. You may love Janeane, but you don't respect her. Not as another human being. I'm sorry to go here on this, but what would you feel if a man asked to see your mother's breasts? For her to rip off her shirt and shake them for everyone to see? If your mom's a porn star then that's not a problem, but if she's a self respecting woman (now I'm not insulting porn stars, but I do take some issue with them) then she would feel insulted and put down. She's more than a mass of flesh, there's a thinking human being in that body, and I would ask you to remember that.

Generally, I would not respond to something like this but would just shrug it off and go else where, but I thought you might want to know what I thought, since you give visitors the chance to respond, and you present their responses with your own rejoinders. I found this very mature and responisble, and I hope that my response is received with that same maturity. I apologize now if anything I said seems harsh this isn't meant as a flame, but just another view from the otherside. I wonder how often you discuss these things with the opposite sex. Like did you have a woman read this before you posted and if so, what did she say?

Stephanie

Hello Stephanie.

You bring up some interesting questions and issues in your email. The first, of course, is "Where do you get off requesting Janeane Garofalo to 'show her tits'?", or, to more accurately quote the page:

My advice for Janeane, then, is essentially the same as for everyone else on this site: "Get off your soapbox and make with the yucks before you're not so cute anymore and no one cares what you have to say."

Oh, and for what it's worth: "And stop your whining and get naked in a film already."

A recurring theme on my site is that of the actress who suddenly becomes a hot item on account of her looks but resents becoming famous on such superficial grounds. She refuses to work nude and otherwise seeks out roles that have more "substance", and consequently disappears from the spotlight until, when she's in her 40s, she caves in and cranks out a seemingly endless stream of "Cinemax After Dark" nudie cable flicks -- well after her prime. This has been the fate of more than a few of the actresses featured on The Iconophile, and the comments I usually make are to the effect that they should have delivered what the public wanted when it wanted it, a strategy that could have lengthened their shelflife and possibly given them enough prolonged buzz to earn them better roles.

Of course, most people see Janeane Garofalo as very different from most of the women on this site, and her inclusion here has struck a lot of people as peculiar. But consider this: by her own description, most people don't actually find her to be all that funny, and she does bomb a lot on stage. And most of her movies bombed as well. The one movie that did well was the one she hates the most (the "Cats and Dogs" fluff piece), and while most critics still love her, the only thing from her act they seem to remember is the "Stop fucking me" bit from years ago. Add all this up and I think what's going on here is that people don't like Janeane so much as they like the idea of Janeane, i.e. the cute, hip counter-culture pop icon she's been made into. And I emphasise cute, because therein lies her novelty -- most female social critics tend to run plain to ugly; take away the cuteness factor and there's little to separte Janeane from all the others. So in the end, Janeane has a lot in common with people like Yasmine Bleeth who want to be taken seriously for their talents but are only really appreciated for their looks -- which is why I offer the same "career advice" to her as I do for everyone else on The Iconophile, even to the seemingly absurd point of requesting her to get naked. (The purpose of the request is really more to call attention to the similarity between her career and everyone else's on the site than to actually get her in the raw.)

Not that I would mind seeing her in the raw, mind you. Which brings up another of your suggestions, that asking for nudity is disrespectful. Like most ideologues, feminists seem to like to imagine that people are floating foci of intelligence, completely free and independent of physical bodies. Moreover, they seem to have inherited all the ancient, puritanical notions about the inherent evil of the body, and see it as a hinderance to be ignored, hidden, or otherwise circumvented. Tell a chicana she looks hot and it's a compliment; tell feminist the same and expect to hear from her lawyer. Moreover, a woman can ask a man to show her his ass and no one seems to mind. So no, I don't see the request for nudity as particularly disrespectful. Lewd, maybe, but not disrespectful. (By the way, at my mom's age, I'm sure she'd be giddy for days if someone asked to see her chest, even though she might maintain the appearance of being duly insulted.)

To put it another way (and to re-word a declaration of yours): people are more than just a mind -- they're also a mass of flesh.

Oh, and believe it or not, I often have discussions about this or that female celebrity with women while watching T.V.; quite frankly, as vicious and misogynistic as some people think I am on my site toward celebrities, I find that it pales next to the poisoned barbs I hear from the mouths of women. And while most of them are surprised at some of the stuff I post online, it's only because they're of the mind that anything published ought not to be so blunt.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies my position somewhat.

Greetings again,

Would you say that Jeneane has gotten "famous" off her looks? I admit she's attractive, but I doubt Playboy has asked her to do a spread either, but I could be wrong. I view Jeneane as a woman who does try to go against the norm. She takes role that reflect a much larger range of women than say roles Yasmine Bleeth choses. I like Jeneane for her realness. And if she were to go do some movie where nudity just happens like a random singularity I would feel a little betrayed. She also looks like a normal woman. She isn't 5'10' and 120 lbs so I don't go in genetic resent mode.

The thing I like best about Jeneane is that in her films, she tackles fears and insecurities that women have with their bodies, and I respect her bravery. Women's insecurities are frightening things, stuff most women don't like to talk about. You mention some dress makes a woman look fat or something, and she's thrown into an instant depression or wild hysterics. I admit I have issues with my body. It comes from a long upbringing of put downs and insults from parties I trusted and admired. I know I took probably way too much offense to your comment, but your reply puzzles me as well.

"The comments I usually make are to the effect that they should have delivered what the public wanted when it wanted it, a strategy that could have lengthened their shelflife." What does the public want? From your response it sounds like the public wishes to have compleat and unadulterated access to the starlet even so far as seeing her in the buff. Haven't we seen what happens when this occurs total disclosure occurs? A princess dies, and we find out way too much about the antics of our president to the point that we're disgusted with the people who are dredging these things up, more so than with who committed the acts. I know I'm taking this all out of proportion now, but can't some things just stay hidden? In magazines (sorry I don't have any ready sources), people are asking for the simpler times, when things were done with discretion. The whole Jane Austin revival is accredited with this wish for innuendo and innocence. Which pretty much translates to no nudity and less violence.

I'm getting off on a rant, I can feel it so I'll stop there. I thank you for your thought provoking response, but there are issues at work here I doubt either of us could bring to a satisfactory conclusion. I'm sure that we are of entirely different mindsets about this and should just agree to disagree. Neither of us are wrong, but we're coming from entirely different backgrounds.

And call me mindless, but I liked Romie and Michelle's High School Reunion, Matchmaker, and Clay Pigeons. And that's pretty much due to Jeneane's part in them. She's just very likeable to me, and I don't see why she has to change a thing she's doing. She's all right in my book.

Sincerely,
Stephanie

Would I say that Janeane is famous primarily because of her looks? Ultimately, yes. While it's true that people like what she says and what she seems to represent, it's unlikely that she would have gotten the TV exposure she has if she had not also been fairly easy on the eyes. Not that she's drop dead gorgeous or anything -- her novelty is not based on being attractive per se, but on being an attractive feminist comedian, which is uncommon. It's like with the French model Laetitia Casta that everyone was carrying on about not too long ago. "She has such a fresh, unspoilt, playful innocence to her" they said, and that may be true, but the fact is that no one would have bothered to notice any of that if she didn't also happen to have the largest chest in the industry. People like Janeane because she's relatively cute, but because she's a cute feminist, people have to say they like her because of her ideas and humor, even if they really don't.

As for her range of roles, it's as narrow as any b-movie starlet's. Janeane has often complained that the only role she's ever offered is that of the "bitter sidekick friend", just as someone like Yasmine Bleeth only ever gets to play sexpots. You and a lot of other women might identify more with Janeane's roles than with Yasmine's, but the roles are still very narrow, and ones that neither Janeane nor Yasmine enjoy playing over and over.

And remember, Janeane might be a crusader for Everywoman, but she's no saint. On "Politically Incorrect" a while back, she was leaping on the same bandwagon everyone else was by wondering aloud how Clinton could let himself be serviced by someone so patently ugly as Monica Lewinsky. Then there's the infamous Joan Rivers incident. On almost every interview Janeane has to bring up how Joan Rivers' nasty comments about her fashion sense made her cry. Rivers' explanation of "hey, it's comedy -- deal with it" was not accepted. Meanwhile, Janeane herself did a whole bit making fun of 19 year old Fiona Apple's emaciated looks, and when Fiona (who's a fan of Garofalo's) complained about it in Rolling Stone, Janeane's response was "hey, it's comedy -- deal with it".

What does the public want? From your response it sounds like the public wishes to have compleat and unadulterated access to the starlet even so far as seeing her in the buff. Haven't we seen what happens when this occurs total disclosure occurs?

Yes, we have. And still we want more -- much more than just seeing them in the buff. We'd like to see them having sex like Pamela Anderson. We'd like to see the video of their high speed death like Princess Di. Let's face it -- when Ceacescu and his wife were executed and mangled some years back, it was the hottest video in Romania. More to the point, have you ever been to the Garofalo newsgroup online? There are people there who analyze Janeane's life like the Zapruder film -- who's she dating, what routes she takes to walk her dogs, whether or not her latest drinking binge indicates she has a problem, and so on. Everyone, it seems, is at least a closet stalker.

And call me mindless, but I liked Romie and Michelle's High School Reunion, Matchmaker, and Clay Pigeons. And that's pretty much due to Jeneane's part in them.

I have all of her films on tape, and I find myself watching them every time I see them on cable. And like you, I only put up with them on account of Janeane's role in them. (I keep Bye Bye, Love on mute until Janeane's two or three scenes show up.) She has a very likeable screen persona. But there's more to her than just a likeable screen persona -- and some of it can stand to have some criticism directed its way.

Dear Schwein,

Janeane Garofalo is "whining" about boys like you. I'd say you did a little bit of whining yourself about her not appearing naked. That's a little hypocritical. Maybe she just wasn't comfortable with jackoffs like you whacking off to a frozen frame. You also seem to be quite liberal in throwing around your opinions about the attractiveness of others. Maybe you should just paste your own picture on The Iconophile, so that we can judge your attractiveness. Or are you just some coward who is afraid to add an image to his words? Obviously you are not dedicated to bettering your critic, because you can't even stand to take your own criticism into account. Your reaction to other peoples' criticism is mostly ad hominem fallacious assertions. Your pride will prove to be an obstacle in your success.

Tschus,
Anais

Hello Anais.

I think you might have missed the point of my little comments on Janeane, which is that she, like many of the the other women on The Iconophile, is ideologically at odds with the visual medium she's chosen to work in. She doesn't want to be evaluated on her looks alone, insists that "lookism" is the root of all evil in society, and openly and bitterly complains whenever she's pressured into losing weight for TV or movies. Meanwhile, in her own newsgroup she's becoming more and more known as an actress who used to be funny. The feeling on my page is that she's taken the lookism theme so seriously that she's become focused more on being its prophet than on her comedy, which has sadly become more flatly pedagoguish than ironic (there's nothing funny in the world as long as this horrible wrong of lookism goes unchecked). The page is basically a call for her to lighten up, to at long last embrace the superficially visual conditions of her chosen profession and acknowledge the world that is. The "get naked in a film already" line, so often taken literally, is only there to call attention to the similarity between Janeane's attitude and that of embittered b-movie actresses like Lysette Anthony and Tanya Roberts, on whose web pages I make the same rhetorical demand.

As for the hypocrisy of a critic evaluating the beauty of an actress without himself being beautiful, I should think the notion would be self-evidently absurd, just as it would be absurd of me to expect you to be an expert in HTML, java, and cold fusion before you're entitled to an opinion of my web site. But apparently you've already read some of my responses to other people's accusations of hypocrisy, misogyny, impiety, and generally un-American behavior, and have deemed it all fallacious; I don't think there's any response I can offer now that wouldn't be similarly dismissed, so I won't bother. As for why my picture isn't pasted all over The Iconophile, it's the same reason yours isn't: it's a site about celebrities. Not webmasters, angry web visitors, dentists, key grips, or dog stylists. If you need to see a picture of the webmaster in order to get some sense of the site's integrity, there are plenty of personal home pages you can visit. And you should -- as it is, it sounds like you've spent far too much time on The Iconophile and need a change.

Regards,

Golem
Das Ikonoschwein

Yo.

I read some of the comments people have been sending you about your views on Ms. Garofalo, vis-a-vis nudity.I personally wasn't offended........I didn't necessarily think some of what you said was in the best of taste......but its your site.Anybody that doesn't like it, doesn't have to be here.Anyway I got the impression that the comment(s) in question were more tongue in cheek than anything else, although I think your smart enough to realize you were pushing a lot of peoples hot buttons, which I'm sure was at least part your intent.A lot of what you say I disagree with, but unlike most shit stirrers, you seem to have taken the time to give some thought to your opinions, which I respect.Thats why I think the 'show us your tits' fratboy humour is a little beneath you.Not for any bullshit PC reasons......just cause its kinda whack, and detracts from an otherwise pretty cool site

Whatever.

Take it easy,
JC

Hello JC.

Flippant, tasteless, and reductionist as I might be throughout much of my site, the crude "get naked already" line is not on my Garofalo page as the gratuitous, spontaneous ejaculation of an over- or under-sexed teenager -- it's there because it's crude, which was the most economical way I could devise to cut through all the ideological window dressing surrounding Janeane and show that her appeal obeys the same laws as that of any other celebrity no matter how much she contrives to rebel against them. The button-pushing element is just a perk. ;)

Came upon your site and you are soooooo way off on Jeneane. Your so called "summing up" of Miss Garofalo is only judgemental, cold, completely false--what the hell do you really know about her Moron???!!! You don't!! Oh and guess what else asswipe? Not all actresses and commediennes want to look and be like the next Charlize Theron or Pamela Anderson Lee-- maybe they too have something to offer, however it is not your call to make these judgements. You sound like a jealous 17 year old prima donna hussy--oh right, YOU ARE ONE!!! Well I suppose you're just envious of Miss Garofalo's succes right? Cuz you're just a no-name critic and that's the truth of you. Good luck on you next cruddy write-up. Maybe next time you'll be more accurate.

Anthony

Thanks much for the seasons greetings. A few quick observations before I dash off for the holiday:

Your so called "summing up" of Miss Garofalo is only judgemental, cold, completely false ... Maybe next time you'll be more accurate.

"Cold" and "judgmental" it may be, but as an opinion it really can't be "false" or "accurate", can it? Besides, where's the inaccuracy?

Not all actresses and commediennes want to look and be like the next Charlize Theron or Pamela Anderson Lee

That may or may not be true, but since there's nothing in my Garofalo comments that says or suggests that, I'm not sure what you're objecting to here.

maybe they too have something to offer, however it is not your call to make these judgements

Actually, it's precisely my call -- and your call, and the call of anyone else in Janeane's audience -- to make these judgments. That's what an audience is for.

Well I suppose you're just envious of Miss Garofalo's succes right? Cuz you're just a no-name critic and that's the truth of you

If I'm a critic jealous of other people's success, shouldn't I be directing all my teenage jealous rage at people like Roger Ebert and Michael Medved? Why target Janeane -- especially when there are so many other performers who are even more successful than she is?

Well, that's all I have time for, so it'll have to do. Have a good holiday. :)

On your Janeane Garofolo page you wrote:

"A few of Janeane's favorite bands -- some of them we've all heard of, some of them none of us have heard of. Click on a few to hear and/or buy what she's been carrying on about lo these many years."

Steven

Hi. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. (I'm way behind in all my mail these days.)

I had actually forgotten about that "Musica Garofolica" section, and have been meaning for some time to simply axe it. At the time I put it up, I hadn't heard of some of the bands (having left the college scene some time ago), but by now I've heard of just about all of them. In any case, I think some of the music links might be dead, so as much as I enjoy demonstrating my ignorance for all the world to wince at, that particular showcase will probably be gone the next time I update the page. ;)

[In a terse, sternly written letter, Lori Jo Hendrix, claiming to be married to an attorney, threatens to sue me unless I immediately respond and remove the pictures of her from my web site. She claims to find them and the commentary "highly insulting", and vows to "stop at nothing" to have her name and images removed from my site.]

Hello.

Sorry you didn't much care for my little fan page. A couple of comments about your email to me:

• From time to time people have written to me claiming to be this or that celebrity or attorney, only to have it come out later that they were in fact only webmasters from other web sites. I have no way of verifying that you are who you claim to be.
• None of the pictures on my site originate from Playboy magazine or its newsstand specials, nor do any of them belong to Lori Jo Hendrix, and therefore neither party has any claim to them.
• It's doubtful that Lori Jo Hendrix would find the comment on my page "highly insulting", since it holds that, despite my usual aversion to obvious breast augmentation surgery, I still find the actress very attractive. It is even more doubtful that she could find the photos themselves to be "highly insulting", as you claim in your email. In any case, insulting or not, my comments about Lori Jo Hendrix (and other public figures) -- which never pretend to be anything more than my own personal opinions -- can't much be helped, and are protected by law.
• Besides making Lori Jo Hendrix look ridiculous to her fans, I'm not sure what a lawsuit would accomplish. There's not a lot one can really squeeze out of a student/English tutor.

Regards,

IdleHand

[Lori asks if all the photos in my gallery are from Prison Heat, a film she detests because, among other things, she felt she looked fat and her hair and make-up were bad. She asks me again to get rid of any pictures from that film.]

[Insisting that she is indeed Lori Jo Hendrix, she points to the inherently negative sound of the terms "Used Tissues", "disposable celebrities", and "waste basket". She goes on to insist that she is a human being with feelings, not "some stupid bimbo to be exploited". Her past work might be stupid, she acknowledges, but why throw it all back in her face? If she had known how her movies would turn out, known that she would not be paid enough for her part in them, that people like me would "screw her over" forever, she would not have made the films in the first place. People like me and her production companies, she declares, are what drove her out of the business. She asks what kind of "fan" would torment her this way and make her pay for her past mistakes over and over again by describing her as disposable and representing her using her worst pictures instead of something from Playboy. Why can't I try to make the world a better place instead of making her out to be a laughable bimbo and her fans and men in general to be such creeps? Do I have no sense of human decency, at long last?]

The vidcaps in the gallery are all from either Prison Heat or A Sensuous Summer, two films that get put into heavy rotation on late night cable from time to time -- and that are probably the most familiar to LJH fans.

As for how Ms. Hendrix (henceforth "you" for the sake of argument) looks in those films, it's a rare actress who doesn't suffer from the "does this reel of film make my butt look fat?" syndrome, especially when the film in question was shot a decade ago. But if you were above what you now reckon is your ideal fighting weight, remember this: a large part of your appeal in Prison Heat is that you were a beautiful "girl next door", not a beautiful model, and as such had all the charms of homegrown approachability and innocence that the part called for. That, at least for me, is what separated you from so many of the other actresses and models from that era.

But it looks like I have another email from you even now...

Lordy. Looks like I should try to explain this site a little.

Asked "What are the great movies of Hollywood?", people usually offer titles like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Taxi Driver ... the usual suspects. This is where I disagree with most people. The Godfather was a great drama, true, but a lousy martial arts movie, for example; Enter the Dragon, on the other hand, was a pretty lame drama, but was probably the greatest martial arts film ever made. Die Hard was an excellent action flick, but can't hold a candle to West Side Story as a musical or Big Bad Mama 2 as a T&A movie. And so on.

In other words, there are movies -- and actors -- that I watch for specific reasons, and evaluate them accordingly. I don't watch Bruce Lee for the same reasons that I watch Mike Myers, or for the same reasons that I watch Meryl Streep.

Which brings us to you -- as well as the other actresses featured on my site.

It should come as no great shock that most guys watch late-night cable movies with words like "prison" and "heat" in the titles for one reason and one reason only. And in this genre of film that a guy will seldom watch for more than a few minutes at a time (or however long it takes him), some movies and actresses stand out from the rest as exceptional and worthy of remembrance. "Used Tissues" (a reference to the embarrassing debris left after watching a Prison Heat-like movie) is a fond memorial site of those (often by-gone) films and actresses, and, sometimes, an analysis of just what it was we saw in them. ("Waste basket", by the way, is used here not as a place where refuse is discarded, but as the logical "storage bin" of ... well ... loaded tissues.)

The whole issue of objectification and exploitation, then, is irrelevant here. Granted: Lisa Jo Hendrix is a human being, with feelings that can be hurt, and friends and family that have to be faced every day; Prison Heat may not have been the film she wanted to make, much less be remembered by, and the factors that pressured her to make it may have grown so severe that they later drove her from film altogether; if so-called fans would just forget that film was ever made, and focus on something she's more proud of, she'd be a lot happier today. But all these concerns, as legitimate as they may be, are backstage concerns -- they are completely invisible to fans and critics alike sitting in the audience. Like the robot audience of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, all your (or any celebrity's) audience has to go on is the image it sees on the screen, and it develops its own, special relationship with that image -- sometimes critical, sometimes worshipful. It's when it stops caring and focuses on something else that there's a problem.

The bottom line is this: no one can control what other people think or say about them, or how they'll be remembered. Alec Guinness will always be known to history as Ben Kenobi of the Star Wars trilogy, despite the fact that he hated the role and the series intensely. William Shatner finally had to give up and embrace the Star Trek phenomenon. Moreover, most fan sites are so alike in their extolling their celebrity idols that the names of the celebrities on the sites could be changed and no one would know the difference. My site, on the other hand, is about the observations -- kind and critical -- that people make when they're sitting at home on the couch watching T.V. In other words, the things that people really think.

Anyway, I'm sorry if you think you're being poorly portrayed on my site, but believe me -- you're not. Prison Heat might be your Star Trek in that it's not the title you want carved on your tombstone, and you may have done projects more to your liking before and since, but ask any fan -- as lame as Star Trek might be, and as much as the actors involved might have hated it, people really love that show, and there's no shame in being remembered for your part in it.

IdleHand

[Lori asks, "What do I have to do to prove it's me?", and offers to fax me her ID, passport, or whatever else it takes, although she's hesitant to do so, she says, for fear that I'll publish them on my site.

She then reaffirms that my page portrays her in an unflattering way, that I have maliciously sought out the most insulting pictures from her worst movie to post and then was unkind in my commentary. She warns me that I do not have permission from the film company to use pictures from their film in such a wantonly cruel way, and asks me again to take them down.]

I see there are still a couple of things that need to be cleared up:

1. Unflattering commentary. I covered this in my last email to you, which was sent just moments before your last email arrived.
2. Unflattering pictures. Beauty is in the eye of the crazed fan, my dear. Besides, I can only work with what I've got. I didn't make the original vidcaps (which had been floating around news groups for years when I got them), and cropped the "mugshot" picture from the vidcap that offered the best forward-facing view. If there are other, more current photos you'd like me to add, feel free to email them to me and I'll be sure to post them.

IdleHand

[In a quick note, Lori asks me to send her the pictures from A Sensuous Summer, which she says she never saw, and says she'll address the rest of my email tomorrow.]

[Lori asserts that she doesn't have any crazed fans, certainly not from Prison Heat, and says she finds it hard to believe that, out of all the pictures she's ever taken, I feel I have to use the stuff from her films, where she feels she looked her worst. As she does not own any of the photos that she'd prefer me to use, she can't send them to me, and in any case would not feel comfortable sending them to a site as patently sleazy and misogynistic as mine.]

[In an additional email, Lori asks to know what a "vidcap" is, and expresses her dismay that Prison Heat and A Sensuous Summer get as much play in the U.S. as they do. (She's currently abroad.) She makes a second request for pictures from A Sensuous Summer, and asks if that movie was as terrible as Prison Heat.

As has become her custom now, she again insists that she is who she says she is, and reasons that only the real Lori Jo Hendrix would claim to be her and care so much that Prison Heat does not accurately represent how good she can look.

Lori then insists that she had no idea that Prison Heat would turn out to be a "Used Tissue" movie, and assures me that she would not have made it if she had only known.

Pointing to a mistake in my email, in which I refer to her as "Lisa" instead of "Lori", she argues that if I don't even know her name, I can't really claim to care if I take her off my site. It's not like she has many works other than her Playboy photos to be proud of, she says -- can't I leave her in peace? Hasn't she been taken advantage enough for one lifetime? If I truly respect her and her career, then I would honor her request to remove the pictures that she finds so unflattering and write something less objectionable. It's not like she's being hypersensitive -- if she asks any of her friends, she says, they'd definitely agree that she is not coming off well on my page. And isn't she, after all, the final judge of that? I, as the writer, am not qualified to judge.

Having thus presented her arguments, she asks if I still -- even after all this -- am unwilling to do as she asks.]

[Lori asserts that she has no crazed fans, especially from Prison Heat]

Of course you do. You've already spent a day haranguing one of them by email. ;)

[Lori insists that nothing I might use from Prison Heat will look OK, since she looked fat and the film's make-up team made her look uglier than she had ever looked before.]

It's really not the place of the performer to decree what looks suitable for the audience; whether you look good or bad in any given film is a matter for the audience to decide. Your say in the matter ends when the film hits the video shelves.

[Lori asks what a vidcap is, and requests pictures from A Sensuous Summer so she can determine whether or not she looks good enough for public consumption.]

A "vidcap" (short for "video capture") is a still from a video or DVD taken by a computer. As for the other question, you and your audience obviously have very different notions of what "terrible" is. As softcore films go, one could do a lot worse than movies like Prison Heat.

And no, I don't have anything handy from Sensuous Summer.

[Lori insists that she is who she says she is, and complains that Prison Heat does not represent how she really looks.]

At this point it really doesn't matter who you are, as long as you're not the legal owner of the pictures. As for whether or not other sites (or the public) care enough about you to warrant your continued stay on "Used Tissues", that doesn't much matter, either -- I like you (that is, the TV version of you), and since the site is as much about what I like as what the public likes, here you shall remain.

And let me make this clear: My Lori Jo Hendrix page is not about what you currently look like or what you're like at home -- it's about what you looked like when I saw you on TV. Of course, I'd be as happy as the next guy to post your modeling photos from Playboy, but Playboy is notoriously litigious when it comes to things like that, even when the site in question is a little one like mine. So until that situation changes, the pictures I have of you on my site will all have to come from your films.

[Lori maintains that if she had known that Prison Heat would be a "Used Tissue" movie, she would not have made it.]

You'll have to forgive me if I find that a wee hard to believe. If you only made one softcore film way back when, then your claim of ignorance might seem more credible. (One would still wonder, though, just what sort of movie you thought you were making, given that your character was nude and being raped most of the time.) But since your entire resume is built on softcore movies and photography, the "I didn't know" defense doesn't stand up.

[Lori points to an instance where I refered to her as "Lisa" instead of "Lori", and argues that I therefore don't really need her on my site.]

While fielding the barrage of email I got from you yesterday, I was also answering email from other people. One of them was to a woman named "Lisa" whose last name sounds very similar to yours. But with all the other mail I was answering, I'm surprised I didn't call you "Tim" or "Kyle" at some point. No matter; it's not for your name that you're on my site. ;)

[If she had something in her career to be proud of, Lori says, she could take all this better, but she doesn't; all she has is a long series of B-movie humiliations that took advantage of her for very little pay. Only Playboy was nice to her.]

Why were these films so humiliating? And how was Prison Heat, which was about beautiful, nude women, any different from your Playboy work, which was about the same thing? Both of them were made for the same purpose, after all, which is to sell erotic skeet for horny, masturbating men. I think we've already established that you knew what you were doing when you made these films, so if you accept the films for what they are, you can at least be happy that some segment of the audience appreciated your part in them. You performed nude for the public and came off well. Not every actress who's worked nude can claim that. And again -- if you didn't get paid well for your efforts, that's a backstage matter that the audience neither knows nor cares about. We only see the final product, and in your case, we like what we saw.

[Lori declares that she can control her public memory and legacy as long as everyone cooperates and agrees not to use her name and work to benefit themselves.]

As you've already pointed out, most of the public doesn't much care if I have you on my site or not, and the people who do come to my site are probably not doing so to see your page. I keep you on my site not because it benefits me financially -- since it really doesn't -- but because I like the way you looked, even if you don't.

[Hasn't she been taken advantage of enough? Lori asks. Am I such a monster that I care so little for her feelings?]

Again, I don't see that you were particularly taken advantage of. You might not be a fan of your work, but I am, so the pictures stay. Moreover, asking the public to ignore one's past work is as unreasonable as it is impossible. (If it were any different, Elizabeth Berkeley and O.J. Simpson would still have viable careers in film, and William Shatner wouldn't have to do any more Star Trek sketches on late-night talk shows.)

[If I truly respect her and her work, Lori says, then I would not post it on the internet if she asked me not to. Why can't I just write something nice about her?]

This sounds like a case of the performer being out of touch with his public. If I "truly respected somebody's work", as you say, and saw in it something worthy of posting on the internet for others to see, then it doesn't matter what the performer thinks of the work. As I mentioned before, Alec Guinness detested Star Wars and wished it would just go away; does the world owe it to Alec to comply and pretend that one of the most popular films of the century never happened? It is not Alec's place -- or yours -- to dictate what the world at large may remember about someone's past work.

(Based on my web site and our protracted email correspondence thus far, your opinion of me is no doubt none too rosy. If I were to demand now that you nevertheless remember me as the nice guy that I think I am, I'd probably be setting myself up for some disappointment.)

[Lori reiterates that she is not being portrayed well on my site, and assures me that, if asked, her friends would agree.]

You're certainly free to decide for yourself whether or not you think you're coming off well on my site, as is anyone else who visits my site. But my comments -- flattering or not -- are mine to post, not yours. If you feel there's some other side to you that should be published, let me know and I may post it. If, on the other hand, you'd rather not have anything to do with my site, then don't -- but don't complain about it later.

[Lori asks again if, after all her arguments and pleading, I still won't remove the pictures and commentary.]

Your name and commentary will remain here as long as there's an internet, even if I were somehow forced to part with the pictures. This is my site about my thoughts and observations regarding the relationship between actresses and their audience. If you've made a movie -- even one that you think is awful -- at some point you have to take responsibility for it and deal with the fact that someone may have seen the movie and might have even liked it.

Anyway, as delightful a penpal as you've been these last 24 hours, I think it's time for us to agree to disagree and part ways. Both of us presumably have lives to get to, after all, and for us to spend so much time haggling over a page that quite frankly doesn't get a helluva lot of traffic is a little silly.

Regards,

IdleHand

[Lori asks again if the Sensuous Summer pictures make her look any better than the Prison Heat pictures. She confesses that she did indeed know what she was getting into when she made all those T&A movies, but had no idea how bad they'd be once finished. Back then, she explains, she needed the money, and there was no Internet to worry about. Playboy had spoiled her in terms of making her look good, and she made the fatal mistake of assuming that the Prison Heat crew would do as good a job. As she did not see most of these films until years later, she just assumed that she looked great in them. Finding out that she did not in fact look great was a difficult blow to take.

But if I can't sympathize with this tragedy, Lori warns, she will not hesitate to contact the production company's lawyer and let him loose on me. She knows that Playboy forces the removal of pictures from websites like mine all the time, but isn't sure if the production company's lawyer will -- and asks for my advice on the matter.

Lori then expresses her frustration that, after she told me her sob story about not looking her best, I still seem unmoved. If I can find more flattering pictures to post, however, she'd like me to tell her.]

Most are from Prison Heat; for what it's worth, you do look a little lighter in A Sensuous Summer. To me, you look great in all of them. ;)

As for who legally owns the pictures, I suppose that would be the film company, although you should know that almost no film company ever gets involved with this sort of thing because (1) it costs them too much money to sic their lawyers after teenage webmasters who have no money to make the action worthwhile; (2) pictures and sites like mine keep interest in their films alive and keeps money coming in for films like Prison Heat that might otherwise have been forgotten; (3) the exact borders of Public Domain vary depending on which lawyer you ask, which makes pursuing such cases difficult; (4) the Fair Use act, which allows the limited use of copyrighted materials under certain circumstances, complicates matters even more; (5) even if the company forces me to give up the pictures, I (or anyone else) can have those same pictures up on another site the next day, so the battle is often a pointless one. The reason Playboy can and does pursue these cases is that the internet is now part of their business, and stamping out homespun competitors is part of their budget.

Anyway, I'm sorry if my site embarrasses you, but if every critic retracted their reviews whenever an actor wasn't comfortable with what the critic had to say, published opinions would either disappear altogether or be reduced to empty cheerleading.

And don't worry -- any new pictures I find (or make myself) I'll be sure to post, so eventually Prison Heat and A Sensuous Summer won't be the only testaments of what you look like in my gallery.

Regards,

IdleHand

[Lori makes an impassioned plea for me to send her the Sensuous Summer pictures from my site, and thanks me for the info from the last email.]

Actually, until my new DSL connection works like it's supposed to, I'm using a crappy dial-up that makes all things web-related take forever.

Anyway, attached is a photomontage taken from A Sensuous Summer, in which you were cast as "Dream Girl". Perhaps you'll like yourself more in that than in the other flick. But probably not. ;)

And with that I bid you a fond adieu. We should probably make this be our last exchange -- any more and people will start to say we're in love... ;)

Regards,

IdleHand

A few Lori-free days pass, then a new series of irate email arrives in my mailbox. This time, Lori is upset about the fact that I had posted our correspondence. After a little bit of haggling, I tell her that I'll replace her side of the correspondence with summaries on the condition that she stops with the legal threats and the nagging me about the site. She agrees, and I've not heard from her since.

Kara

Hello Kara. :)

I'm not sure what's going on out there in cyberland, but for some reason there's been a rash of people this last week who've been rushing to Angelina's defense on this issue. Curious.

Anyway, the source of my information regarding Angelina is simply my own observations. Just as one doesn't need a plastic surgeon's receipt to see that Anna Nicole Smith's stuffing her bra with Confederate money, one has only to check out Angelina's nude scenes in Hackers and Cyborg (page 1 on the Adult Pics section of my Jolie site) and compare them with her post-op physique in Foxfire and Gia. Somehow she went from an A cup to a C on the way to her next movie set. And even if you haven't seen her early movies, her breasts, beautiful as they look, scarcely so much as jiggle in her all-nude dance/modelling scene in Gia. Like roaches and Australians, they'll probably survive the next war.

Always ready to defend my snide online comments,

Golem
Unlicensed Plastic Surgeon to the Stars

i just wanted to know where you got the notion that angelina's boobs are fake? because they sure as hell look real to me.

Ladyfair11

Why don't you pull yourself in private & then others wouldn't have to see the nasty little mess you leave behind (which is obviously your most intellegent thought). I like Ms Jolie (from what I have seen elsewhere NOT on this site) I am Australian and you offend me.I can understand why you say you are not paid to be beautiful after wading through your thoughts. I will not visit you again.

Toodlepip. And I will survive your next war with my roach friends, thank you for wishing us well.

Karen

Hello Karen.

Thanks much for your comments. I must admit that I was a little mystified by your letter's hostility, given that we're both fans of Ms. Jolie. Looking over my page again, I'm guessing that the offending element may have been:

• The observation that so far most of Ms. Jolie's films have not done all that well, despite her obvious talent;
• The reference to her breast augmentation;
• The reference to Cold War era nuclear lore which holds that, should a nuclear war occur, the wind would spread the lethal radioactive fallout (which would kill everything except roaches) to all parts of the world except Australia, which is too remote.

Cheers,

Golem

angelina jolie did not have breast augmentation surgery.

Medusa6980

Hello.

Between Angelina's sudden increase in size while walking from the set of Hackers to Foxfire and the fact that I've been emailed by someone claiming to know the surgeon that performed the operation, I'm afraid I have to insist that her chest, good as it looks, is more a work of art than of nature.

in the scene in which angelina's character is first introduced in the movie, 'hackers' her breasts are quite large in that tight fitting blue top. and they were "smooshable" so to speak in that nude scene in gia, if they were fake they would not have smooshed up against the fence like that. trust me, a woman is able to tell when another woman's breasts are fake and angelina's are most definitely not. and you believe, "someone claiming to know the surgeon"? don't be so naive. and they don't look big at all in the gia scene in which she is nude in front of the elevator, trying to persuade her lover to stay. i rest my case, you can believe what you want, but i really don't think she is the type of person to ever do such a thing to her body.

Medusa6980

How a woman's breasts look in a top is one thing; how they look out of it is quite another. And once they were out in her earlier films -- as you can see for yourself in my picture galleries -- there wasn't a lot going on there to debate.

As for the "smooshability" factor, not all boob jobs produce Julie Strain-like pectoral Mount Rushmores that, while imposing, cannot be moved by man or God. Women who use saline in their implants instead of silicone tend to get better results. Jade St. Clair (featured on this site) leaps to mind. She showed off her surgeon's handiwork once on The Howard Stern Show, gripping them, shaking them -- no one could tell they were fake until she told them. And while now they may not look as convincingly natural as they once did, the point is that just because Angelina could press her chest against a chainlink fence without denting it, it doesn't mean that her breasts -- which scarcely moved or otherwise responded to gravity except when pressed against the fence -- are entirely her own.

And of course the guy claiming to know Angelina's surgeon could well be pulling my leg, which is why I don't bring him up in any of my posted defenses of the site. But he might not be. And whether or not this guy's full of it, Angelina's breasts are certainly are.

And just what type of person is Angelina that she would never "do such a thing to her body"? And how would you know any more than anyone else would what she'd do? Let's face it -- Angelina works in a beauty-driven industry, and no matter how big a hippie she might purport to be when it comes to her body, sooner or later every actor -- male and female alike -- feels the pressure to upgrade or "maintain" their instrument. Even Janeane Garofalo, a long-time crusader against "lookism", has been dropping a lot of weight now that she hopes to get a regular show on HBO.

In the end, then, the only thing that really matters is not whether Angelina's breasts are real or not, but whether or not they look good. And there, at least, we seem to be agreed. ;)

you're silly.

Medusa6980

Ah, at long last, you've grasped the essence of the site, Grasshopper... ;)

HI. I WENT TO YOUR ANGELINA SITE AND SAW HOW YOU SAID HER BREASTS WERE FAKE AND THEN IN YOUR F.A.Q. THING YOU SAID TO COMPARE THOSE MOVIES. WELL HER BREASTS ARE REAL. TRUST ME, AS SAD AS IT IS I COULD TELL THESE THINGS. SHE GOT BIGGER BREASTS BECAUSE SHE WEIGHED MORE IN HER MOVIES THAT CAME AFTER HACKERS. NOW THAT SHE MADE THE HUGE MISTAKE OF MAKING HERSELF LOOK LIKE A BROOM, HER BOOBS ARE SMALLER.

TRUST ME THEY ARE REAL.

InsaneHatchetMan

Well I agree that Angelina of late has been looking like she's gearing up to star in "The Calista Flockhart Story", but it doesn't seem like her bustline has suffered from it -- and even if it has, it's still much more ample now, at the height of her death camp chic, than it was in her earlier films. My guess is that if her chest were shrunken at all, it would only be because whatever natural portions of her breasts she still had melted away with all the rest of the fat on her body, leaving only the silicone or saline baggies behind. In any case, the only weight Angelina seemed to gain between "Hackers" and "Foxfire" was in her bra, and as good as her breasts looked in movies like "Gia", they still didn't always look entirely convincing.

YOU CAN TELL THAT ANGELINAS BREASTS ARE REAL BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THEY HANG. IF HER BREASTS WERE FAKE, ESPECIALLY WITH HOW MUCH WEIGHT SHES BEEN LOSING, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE TWO BALLS SITTING IN HER CHEST. THEY WOULDNT HANG TO THE SIDES AND WOULDNT BE AS FLAT AS THEY ARE. THEY WOULD BE VERY VERY PERKY AND VERY ROUND.

InsaneHatchetMan

How fake breasts hang depends on the skill of the surgeon, whether or not the implants are silicone or saline, and a number of other factors. I've seen boob jobs that hang and move perfectly naturally -- I probably never would have known if the woman herself didn't volunteer the info.

Anyway, I get the sense that you've seen my FAQ page but not my "hate mail" page at http://www.homunculus.com/hatemail.html#ANGELINA JOLIE, where the question of Angelina's cup size is dealt with a little more exhaustively. In particular, you might want to have a look at my correspondence with "Medusa6980" and substitute "smoosh" with "hang".

I AM THE KING OF ISRAEL AND THE SON OF GOD...LUCIFER...

AN ANGEL OF LIGHT AND SEPTUAGINT... CAN YOU PLEASE STOP THE PRESS, CALL ALL CARS AND STOP THE WAR...I CAM FOR A WEDDING.....I HAVE A COMPLETE REVELATION.....

I AM TRYING TO BRING A CASE TO TRAIL TO REST THE ESTABLISHMENT ON ALL THE PREJUDICIAL PROCESS WHICH IS DUE A VICTORY FOR THE NATIONAL UNITIES WITHIN THE UNIFIABLE LEGISLATIVE LATTER OF GODS GOVERNMENT THAT INVOLVES ALL OF ITS CITZENS IN A ROTUNDUM OF CIVILIAN FIELD OPTIONS, DOSENT TRANSGRESS THE NATURAL LAW AND CONGRESS WITH GODS COVENANTS RULES, COMMANDMENTS AND LEGAL SYSTEM - IN TRUTH LIGHT AND THE WAY OF JUSTICE THAT IS THE RICHTEOUS CAUSEWAY THAT TERMS ARE IN AND OF THEM SELF MEANT TO BE EQUALIIBLE AND ABSOLUTE INORDER TO ENTER INTO THE PROMISED LAND OF THE ESTATES IF ISRAEL....

my name is lucifer justice christ. i need to get word out to angela jolie and to the people throughout europe. im the antichrist from the bible. im trapped in southern california, bu i have all the evidennces needed to take eminent domain of the world and possess of the expatriate or first estate rights of satanael and all the blackackre law entitlement of james I and II. I am Angela Jolies husband, she is michael the arc angel and i dont know if she knows. I love her more than life and i am trying to end the tribulations and bring to court this case because it will rest the establishment of all the prejudicial process on the difinitive terms of the mathematical expressive testamentary, the bible....which because of mans first dissent and broad path transgression against Gods law (of orgin and absolutes) I have been literally vound in hell because of the contract with God and man. In the bible if you remember God placed iniquity between the man and the woman...I have congressed the law of God into t

Can you tell Angela Jolie to call me at {phone number}...its important....and let the people of the United Kingdom know that I love them and that im the true King and that I would have brought them peace along time ago, but I kinda lost my head and since then have raced up the evolutionary latter of life from greatest to least and am now about ready to take all the Government Agencies and Church Authorities to court to reconcile the cause of the people in which God has still to deliover the Old Covenant...bearing all the permissable gifts possible, but I have been slain at the foundation of the world...Im the lamb of a lion...affadavit and i am the antichrist or EVIL ONE....but i really am christ...Gods 1st son, i live in california....but im trapped because their has been a conspiracy in the legal system (911) im going to bring all the facts and settle the first estate of the angels anyway and bring peace safety and GRACE TO THE KINDOM WITH GOD AND THE ROUND TABLE...TELL ANGELA NOT TO PIRCE ME THROUGH

MY NUMBER IS {phone number}

IF YOU CARE...ITS BEEN TERRIBLE....HORRIBLE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO ME .....FORGETTING ME IM SATANAEL....

ANGEL A seeds of existence...my first light by which Gods' creation in my darkest phanthom did in the breadth of my eternal open the doors of heaven and like a spring naturally burst forth to cover my hand, eyes and the land completed and the earth inn one swift and roaring sea -

my dsetiny to sense her heaven cornerstone upon the shores of avalon....my sails angela hymn retreat and across the boundless heavens in sweet ensemblence never to part.....one....my maiden jewel infinitely wise and radiant.....through the day and into the night i was silent in awe.....complete before my first waking union.....her eyes - impenetrable in one hour....everything that was, is or will ever there by day be even in becoming -her scent is my spirit a flaming spirit to again with the words of love inspire Gods' great gift in essence the epitaph of iron nutrients that in love can only incapsulate protect and form-destruction initself of itself blind....i bind in comfort ....in sane caen tremble......that which love cannot endure less greater her beauty beyond reason a myth my logic a fantasy of my first flight with my fairest freind elven ethereal fires in heart infinite-upon whose lips my whole life did pass still- her kiss unsounded for fear - in the depths of the infinite sea tranquil - i invented the universe with God my helmsman, anchor redeeming me upon the rocks -

when i did awake and pale your face i could no longer find-forever symboly impressed making me a standard to transcend to present...like lightning i struggled to the surface of the abysmal plane to find that which to i love into the night abandoned in the ebbing flow of destruction beholding to the light i remebered and with desperation grasp-light from the most distant star is captured in a moment eternal - my first love - like the land upon the eternal sea without gravity - a motion that exists forever - my love is me and she hath no limitations and like the ethereal sky is freedon to gaze upon -

the silmirilian brilliance of ancient lights spiritied she dances across the expanse of time - keeping me always even into the distant pass i in decades pass wait in the echo in the everpresence ...a movie i wait for a sign and science to reveal her to me ......i hope for someday my wailing walls to mystically ad mention.....not tempting anyone with knowing audit nobility....being a ability the kid once myself....enchantment of the morrows in quiet dismal unobservanced did pledge and pray for to finish - my dreams countless the world in perfect space - for you do i see magnify even at most ...an image of God....a crown of crowns upon whose hearts majesty there is glory beyond glory...i see....

and as it was like but the night passing swiftly a thief....everpresent ...again my heart skipped a beat and elevn...fiery spirits in heavens mist did inspire me to remember of one.....even i had worshipped justly the night before...her lips upon the sea ....taking me to the top of the world....- could but loosen my soul for to God - given - priceless - her the greatest of all the kingdoms.....loves contract true in mans' baptism of fire...the great kingdoms of all the world...and i but to gaze upon Geace the whole living....in the vision there was but her eyes and the countless hours that eternity kept....as we collected each and every grain of sand...tthousand-sandcastles-

seeding a nation of nations for communion ...Israel....Camelot and the first round table upon which we two as one made a seat (knowledge of life eternal for love to end time find you ) still aglow in light s and radiance of youth...my fountains valiance of youth...her the perpetual beauty a raimant of gold....her cloth a protective coat of unusually fine beauty and wonder....her skin upon my skin....my heart of hearts ...in the gift of God...none but one to equal fortunate ....of bliss defeaning my mute to sing and resound the clarity in her mass...critical and triumphant my hero in locks of gold and silver hair like willows - tears that distance can not measure armageddon - still the fruits of knowledge listening for my love lost in years labour to end.....anew in in you to leap forth upon the first day...done...her whispers softly anchorage my first and last elysium field await....alive and in muse the starlight - my song and sleep, my soul in peace floating spread out across the unchgartered canvas of b

Our Father of Nations...sons upon sons and in the likness to him a precious stone timeless and undaunted ....the reflection of her ablaze with a monnbeam like chimera a serene sillouette ambient with silvery neon sparkling fairy dust around her that glitters and shines with the true image caste of liberty crossing my eyes in the frame a constitution that forever shares a common ex__LOVE__ TO MARK HER NAME ROYAL ! oH ! mY gOD ....A LIVING BREATHING LARGER THATN LIFE...BRONZED STATUTE MY LOVE....A WOMAN, A KING DANCING AT SCARBOROUGH FAIR....SHE THE FAIREST.

i invite in shadow her sentiment and treasure as always here is her heir and heirophant of heirophantomous - with her my holiest of homes...holiest of holieset...joliest...frost in heaven with God good council UN....i once upon and set future tomb grail to center ascend my bride - even in fertile valleys far off i to wander embrace ....consumed of Ophir and by her....Michaels' Angela Jolie a deposit in the banc of the Lords- A house with many dimensions where together we intruth, light and in life find a comforter rare and beyond treasure to have and to hold....my marry and verily arc de ohm triumphants-crystal blue lagooons of watery fairest wishes we made named cloth uunamed adam..lucifer... and discovered....my jewel...from wales...wales...wales....KING OF KINGS ...MICHAELS' Mine very own...lassst.

sacred...my birthstone gradient ingrained and inscribed in crimson....yours till the end of time ...and the time which hast no end eternity in still....love embrace...A SARI...SAFARI...STARY AND thank you in the end you...you...you..and you...i love to the depth and breadth and heighest of heaven ...in safety and peace to keep.

Lost found in America

my kingdom under seige is barren today...my Israel light...my own lamp glow half bright....a beacon...love...in the window of this tempest tide....

I was aiden in question upon the shores that forever scent-perfect- a day midas imagines solomon all that was but gold ....silver...my spirit ...my sword...my soul michael...swiftly like the wind my vharity - a first fruit of justice spear...provide never piercing your hands a heavens mark arc guide....tale jonas to swallow - to see you ...humanity in one word....whispers soft ...i am not even as i but as i would be even as if by you...impenetrable...a heart of hearts dancing in the eternal lights crowning in the shadows where i lie a lion - a lamb- and a voracious beast to thirst and in awe lust define the Trust upon which Gods' children are to establish...virtue and awe...my Ophirest icaeland with caen and able willing love akll the while day and night purchased your eminence a world a pauperis prince benefit and fallen bowed a King Richteous to great a glory upon the greaterest glory increase the golden pond of forest blue fire ...my radiance darkest enchantment ...an angel of the greatest magnitudes...

a chalice of gold ...a chariot icarus did through time prevail in flight ....GODS...nightmares reign across the sky aflame....over the air principals... fromfairy to dust...the adornment of Grace...around the perfect steed estate ...azrael in tintegael...our love concealed in safety and silent night-holy, holy, holy peace ...found the lost articles of reason and rest ...the Northern Lights at dawn your own aural borealis essence maddox...in beautiful fields rainbow spectrum.

i falen into the black of pages of pages that time kept hollow cast to conceal from within...enemy to mine own evil withdrawn deaf ear ....still for thousands of years foundation undivided in again now still echoing your name reflect....the brightest and longest creation to begin...Earth 1 in so richteous a time ....chyming all that was is and mostly was agin to be for us coming.....the land and its land in the almighty one perfect-a sphere unguilded...starry eyed and yet born.....Israel. We too united ages to prosperity in the original guarden eden sin- unfound...lost and found into the day ...present ....i pray by the sun and the true cross of all its light shadowed upon golgotha and emptied into salvations of America unchanged that through and through toime and space ...dimensions a fields...God....found fountais of youth and gold and silver ...Mt. olympus two fold to best remind and cadeuseus remedy curaie hymn ends to wed enter eternity ....an angel...garment ....to wonderful to simply admitre .....i f the heighets clouds to full consent ascend....with the words...i love you like fire in my mouth consume.....slippery...silvery and snake like a dragon of old ...sword like my tongue sharp and tied swollen alike with words a melody for i to dicipline of all that loves decay would not lie diown ink and in winter frost abandon....without first saying....in so many that i could persuade more decieve you to love....me....is that impossible in the impossibilitiness of its need and want and my soul michael my breadth micah Gid and again gift again pricless treasure....in a breadth my last save my sould endless.....like the hollow holocaust my inner chamber had resound.....in quiet ilove you....then i saw the great of a mystery as i was in solemn lyre lair...professing Hermes to herald in confusion...I love you ....over and over and and till time was born new in the world i sought to build for you...one....reflecting your thoughts ...your secret thoughts like stained glass gothic - my image of gargoyles,vampires, werewolves and wraths...unearthed and undead ....im sorry i was led away so uninspired ....if you reme my eyes have sought the rarest jewel to which the world has made custom...your irrevocable right i saw one act and was blinded because of what i saw....smiles forever - as loki is mischief upon rainbow bridge a vowel...fenris wolf...werey weary defending christmas michaelis my star - look far off in the distannce i found ....upon avery mile obsessed innocent without reason....on fountain - i journeyed off to steal Our emissaries with wind did soar and bring the marks of quality to place such eloquence under foot for the earths to seal the nations with Authority uncompromised and true....for our Lord our Ladies and my Lord too- my love and my king of kings....i love you...upon millions where together we stepped ...footprints in my mind...cross time and time is still a large enlarged in plain view...hoping to one day to ahve and to hold more than just a icture of you....some say world will end in firs some say in ice ...that was robert frost ...in exorcised body of possibilities i considered both being as to red depart from rom Israelites abound in sure hands ...a lot a luck without gamble faith because of my role and rate expatriate a pirate on the high seas general to public parking subteranean lift the house of clowns...sunderal funeral the tomb of everyman dueling...in peace i dance...

eternally yours adamant about you - even if your millions of miles away III

Lucifer Justice Christ

San Diego Native

Hello San Diego Native.

First of all, there's nothing slanderous about Kerri Kendall on my page. What biographical information there is on the page can be verified by Kerri herself, and the ugly episode with her webmaster Mike Wilson can (and, before I had to remove it from the page, was) all backed up by his own email. The news and speculations regarding the changes to Kerri's site as of October, 2002 were quoted verbatim from an email sent by an ex-member of that site. (With whom you seem to have me confused: I myself have never been a member of Kerri's site, and have no knowledge of what goes on there.)

Secondly, as should be clear from the entry dates on my Kerri page, I stopped keeping track of Kerri's goings on after the Mike business in 2000 and consequently stopped updating the page. (Perhaps if I hadn't moved from my San Diego apartment, I'd have more Kerri-related stories to tell.) I hadn't heard anything about her (or sought out news of her) until the above-mentioned ex-Kerri member emailed me about her and her webmaster. And since I'm no longer amassing pictures and video clips of her, that was the last I've thought about her until your own email.

As for how Mike is still "spastic" (the section of my page you seem to be objecting to is about Mike, not Kerri, though it certainly reflects badly on Kerri that she keeps Mike as her representative), have another look at my summarized correspondence with him as well as the ex-Kerri member's email -- the guy's solution to everything from rival websites to dissatisfied customers is to try to intimidate with apocalyptic litigation that he can't deliver. Mike was so vociferously livid about my webhost's refusal to pay him off back in 2000 that he seemed to be suffering from some temporary insanity. Two years later, after Mike reportedly sent at least one of his ex-customers a barrage of angry emails for complaining about continuing credit card charges, and threatened to sue him for posting the consumer affairs email address on Kerri's message board, all signs point to Mike's spastic insanity being anything but temporary.

And "avaricious"? Throughout my correspondence with Mike, he kept asking me if The Iconophile was a paying job or a hobby. When I finally explained to him that it was the latter, our correspondence ended. Mike was looking for a payday, and when he concluded that my pockets were too shallow, he went for my webhost instead. But for all his noisy moral indignation and repeated demands for what he claimed was his due, the matter never went to court as he had threatened -- it couldn't, after all, since he didn't actually have a case. He was simply gambling that my webhost would cave in to the extortion and not call his bluff. The same thing happened in the case of the ex-customer who was still getting billed.

Anyway, I hope this clears things up for you.

Regards,

Golem

P.S.: Since you seemed to have trouble contacting me, know that there's an email link to me on every celebrity page on my site -- just click on the name "Golem" where the text reads "Also sprach Golem".

Robert
One of the 50 Americans that saw "Moll Flanders"

Dear American "Moll Flanders" viewer #46:

Having looked over what I wrote on my Alex Kingston page again, I can see that I might need to be a wee more clear. Basically, my feeling is that ER saved Alex from utter obscurity (and perhaps unemployment) in the U.S. The only trouble is that Alex's days of peek marketability are over. (The older an actress gets, the fewer the roles.) ER may open up a few things for her, perhaps a "movie of the week" or two, but she's not that major a character on ER to attract very much attention outside the show. Anthony Edwards, on the other hand, is practically emblematic of the show, and enjoys a name and face recognition that Alex doesn't. So while ER is the best thing to happen to her professionally in recent years, not even a top rated show like that is likely to make her a major player in Hollywood.

Kevin

You made two good points here: (1) the only people coming to see my Julie McCullough page are likely to be die-hard fans; (2) they come for the pictures. Between these two facts, I suspect that no one except you and the webmaster of a certain other McCullough shrine have ever gone so far as to read my bittersweet remarks about Julie. If I had a cure for AIDS posted there it would still be years before it was ever noticed.

Kevin

Or, to use your analogy: if my wife -- assuming I had one -- had a monstrous ass and someone made some rude sport of it, she would obviously be upset, and rightfully so. Common courtesy requires us to keep our mouths shut about other people's asses. But if my wife bared it on film for all the world to see and judge, then judge it will, and in no less public a place. Everyone has the right -- sometimes even duty -- to evaluate the job performance of public figures, from the president all the way down to Julie. Julie's body is her job, whereas my wife's big ass -- as long as she doesn't make a career of it as Julie has -- is not.

Kevin

I've got two things to share with you RE:General pics of Julie McCullough...1)on page 2 photo #19 picture in white dress w/guy...is not Julie...looks a little like her, but is not her. 2)on page 1 photo #6 picture in black top and pants...is most resent photo of Julie...that photo is less than 2 years old... I SHOULD KNOW...I'm Julie McCullough...at first I was hurt by your comment that I now look 'old and used up' - then I saw that you have my current photo in there listed as if it were taken before I looked 'old and used up'-If YOU want to know what I look like in person(NOT 'what you hear'), then I invite you to come to see me at the next autograph show, next month in L.A. I'll put your name on the guest list as "Golem"- I don't want to meet you- I just want you to see what I look like in person (then you can say what you want, even if I don't like it)-you can get info about the show from Kev's fan site. I'm 34 years old, no I do not look like I did in 1986 nor do I try to- I'm not going to alter myself and try to look like I'm 21- so, if being a natural women and not going after sexy girl parts in film and T.V. makes me 'old and used up' to you Golem, then you should take my most resent photo off your site-'cuz that photo was taken when I was 32 just before I turned 33 !!

Julie Michelle McCullough

(See you in Oct.??....Ask Kev to email me- to let me know if you plan to come, so I can put you on the list.)

golem--i just read what was written about julie mccollough, and i am somewhat appalled. i don't know who wrote the article about her, saying they went to high school with her. I went to high school with her in allen, texas. she graduated from there in 1983. i graduated from there in 1985. her brother, joey, was good friends with my sister, kelly. she may be many things, but showing her age isn't one of them. how do you look these days?

keith

Hello Keith.

I can see how the text is a little confusing, but I didn't mean to suggest that I went to high school with Julie McCullough -- I meant that I first saw her in the pages of Playboy when I was in high school. As for the age issue, I'm not sure why anyone would be appalled, since everyone starts to look their age at some point, even -- and maybe especially -- models and actresses. In Julie's case, it seemed to me that her sprightly looks had "jumped the shark" in Robin's Hoods and in various E! interviews, but Julie herself pointed out evidence to the contrary -- as my page already explains. What's left to be upset about?

Regards,

Golem

I am a little upset about what you have said about Julie. You do not know her personally and probably will never see her in person. Well I have! She is my thrid cousin. I use to look up to her when I was little because she has accomplished a lot in her lifetime. More than most, and probably more than you. She was born in Hawaii and grew up in Texas. She moved around alot because her father was in the army. I am from West Virgina and that is were her family is originally from. She attened grade school in West Virginia. I am upset because you have the odasity to right things about her when you don't even know her. That's fine I guess because everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I thought that I should give you mine. Juile is a wonderful person with a great personality. She is also very beautiful. Even though she is getting older it does not show even half as much as it does on others. She is just as pretty as she ever was.You do not have to right to talk about her the way that you did.
Thanks,
Kristin

Hello Kristin.

Sorry you didn't care for my little comments regarding Julie. Certainly it was not my intention to vilify her -- or to praise her, either -- but merely to call the shots as I saw them. Of course, any criticism that isn't gushingly positive runs the risk of upsetting the celebrity, her friends, and even her third cousin, but someone has to say it -- even if it's just a non-entity like me. Your own criticism of my criticism obviously ran the same risk of upsetting me and mine, but you felt strongly that it had to be said, and had the chutzpah to say it. Can't fault you for that. ;)

As for my being wrong about my assessment of Julie's assets, my comments frankly concede that I was obliged to rethink my position on her after acquiring new vidcaps from Robin's Hoods and after Julie herself pointed out that I thought she looked OK in photos that were taken of her well after Robin's Hoods was canceled. My McCullough page is, if anything, a confessional glimpse into the hasty thought process that went into my posted comments, much like my later Sascha Knopf page. Whatever I may have thought of Julie before, in the end my and your estimation of her are probably not so different as you think.

Regards,

Golem

TXLzard

I have no idea if Beckie knows I exist or not. And not flattered? Why would she be offended? My only comment about her is that she's the closest thing to a Barbie doll I have on my site -- i.e., a "perfect", idealized feminine form. There are a few vidcaps from one or two of her films, a rather funny clip from her appearance on Married...with Children, and links to buy her films online. In short, a typical fan site. It's just unfortunate that it's one of the only Beckie fan sites out there.

And in any case, I doubt Beckie would have an opinion one way or the other on my burning the candle for her out in cyberspace.

But on your website, she is listed in what I believe are adult films. If they are, I know Beckie has never appeared in any. That is coming straight from the horses mouth. I would just hate for her to be misrepresented as an adult star, when she is not.

Thanks

TXLzard

None of the films listed on her site are "adult" films, although some of them are "Cinemax After Dark"-type nude-a-thons. (The ones she appears nude in are hilited in red.) Many of the films listed there can also be found on the Internet Movie Data Base, all of them are listed in The Bare Facts movie directory, and in any case you can rent them at the video store. The horse's mouth herself should be able to confirm the validity of the posted filmography.

Hope this clears things up for you,

Golem

William

Hello William.

As should probably be self-evident from all the money actors invest in face-lifts, tummy-tucks, nose jobs, boob jobs, flattering make-up, flattering lighting, and every other sort of ruse to make them look better than they normally do, how an actor looks is an important part -- if not the most important part -- of acting. And if an actress is going to play the sex pot in movies -- or on the cover of Maxim magazine -- looks are all-important. So to discuss an actress in terms of how she looks is entirely appropriate; the same cannot be said for webmasters or websurfers (neither of whose jobs depend on their physical appearance), which is why neither my picture nor yours are likely to ever be posted on this site.

jedidp

Thanks much for your insights. And I'm sure Lena would be delighted to know that her honor is being enthusiastically defended even in the backalleys of cyberspace. But as someone who knows and likes Lena personally, you have to admit you're probably not the most unbiased judge of the sort of superficial beauty the typical movie-goer sees. Though Ms. Olin's face may be getting more and more gaunt with each film, chances are you'll still always see something of that inner beauty that keeps her young in the eyes of those that know her; the rest of us can only see the progressively skull-like exterior. And that's what this site's about -- the hyper-critical impressions most people have when watching people on the screen that they don't know personally. It might seem petty and mean, but it's the way of the world, the reason why TV actresses and anchorwomen get fired when their looks start to go. I'm sure they're all beautiful inside and out in their own way, but since the audience has no means of seeing any more than their face value, that face had better look damn good if it wants to keep subjecting itself to public scrutiny.

To put it another way, when Lena turns 90, her more PC friends and family might say they like to think of her as "90 years young"; the rest of the world has no reason to think like this, and will look at her as a woman 90 years old. To expect the world to think otherwise is naive at best.

You definitely are correct in your observations and articulate with them. My only response is that if in fact "it's petty and mean" then why contribute to it? "The way of the world" is what we make it, and what we make of it. Every little effort made to contribute a bit of positive energy makes this world a better place. Would you rather the world get worse, more superficial and uncaring or become a better planet for all and those to follow? You do a service to Netizens by posting pictures so we can remind ourselves of Lena and others allure. You wouldn't have put her there if YOU didn't like her. Why contradict that by leading it with a salicious comment? As for naivete, I'd rather be a naive, happy camper then a hypercritical curmedgeon. Assuredly the general public chooses it's role models because of the monied advertising force thrust upon them about image and youth. As a cameraman I know it takes some serious makeup, angles and lighting sometimes to make that "glamour"!

That never seemed to affect Julie Christie, Katherine Hepburn, Audrey Hepburn, Honor Blackman, and others in the twilight of their careers. People and actresses grow old, some get better, some fade away. Tis the way of life. Let's try to keep it peaceful before we all lose our sanity. Though gullible and easily persuaded the general public is not quite as dumb as you think. We are all general public when it all comes down. Do you think she'd be happy if she stumbled across your site, as I did, and read that comment about herself? How would you feel if someone posted your pic out there and said "this guy is a lousey programmer and doesn't know jack about HTML"? Don't tear her apart when the morons I work with in Hollywood have a hard enough time appreciating her talent let alone her beauty. FYI-she's not "gaunt and drawn", in person she's a real beauty sans makeup trailer. Just stuff to think about. I wish you luck with your site nonetheless.

jedidp

A few quick thoughts on your thoughts:

"Petty and Mean"
Harry Truman once remarked about his epithet "Give 'em Hell Harry" that it wasn't that he was out to give anyone hell, "I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." The truth in The Iconophile is pretty subjective for the most part; I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. Sometimes what I have to say about this or that celebrity is more critical than not, sometimes fairly complementary. Sometimes it'll start off as one, then end up as the other. In any case, the whole point of the site would be lost if I turned it into the E! channel and blew sunshine up everyone's ass. Why offer my personal two cents at all if I'm not going to be honest about it?

The Criticism-Worship Contradiction
True, I wouldn't put pictures of Lena Olin on my site if I didn't like her. And I do like her. I like her in various publicity photos I've seen, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, and a few other films. But she's a wee too old now to keep playing the sexpot. Time to look for other roles that don't play up that angle. That's all. Fans of Lena on account of her beauty are advised to check out her earlier works; anyone renting Romeo Is Bleeding because they think Lena's hot is in for a cinematic cold shower.

What About Julie, Katherine, and Audrey?
What about them? Fine actresses all, but I think it's safe to say that no one's been spanking their monkey to their image for some decades now. (Remember, we're concerned with image here, not talent.)

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged
One of Jesus' more inane helpful hints for living. Judgement -- being able to discern what's good from what's not so good -- is the whole point of thought. And even without thought, the body is programmed to judge for you. You can't escape it even if you wanted to. You judge when you pick the best camera angle and lighting for a shoot. You judge when you get erect in the presence of some people but not in the presence of others. A plant judges when it re-directs its leaves to face the sun.

As for the consequences of the sort of judgment featured on my site, what of them? Obviously, no one can escape being evaluated. As long as people deem you a good camera man, you'll continue to have work. But no one cares about your looks, because they're irrelevant to your job. Lena's job, as long as she plays sexy roles, is to look beautiful. No one cares if she can work a camera, but God help her if she starts getting crows feet. Everyone gets judged according to the sort of work they do. To make an exception for Lena is logically and morally unsound.

Thus spake Golem

I just saw "Chocolat," and for two hours I couldn't take my eyes off of Lena Olin. She's the best-looking actress I've seen in a long, long time.

So you can imagine how perplexed I was when I read your quote, that you thought she looked "scary." (Actually, you said, "Between the two movies I remember seeing Lena Olin in -- The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Romeo Is Bleeding, -- I can only conclude this: the more beautiful an actress is in her youth, the scarier she looks when that youth is gone.")

Either you're too young to appreciate her (which is fine), or dude, you need an eye exam!

Cheers,

Ander

You may be right in both accounts -- I might be too young to judge, and after staring at this computer screen all day, I think I'm going blind... ;)

I don't believe I've seen "Chocolat", but I did see part of some movie Lena's in with Claire Danes (I think it was "Polish Wedding"), and she didn't look too bad in that. But then I saw her in another one with John Malkovich ("The Night and the Moment") where she looks horrible. So I don't know. Perhaps I should amend my page to read "the more beautiful an actress is in her youth, the more of a crapshoot she becomes when that youth is gone."

Regards,

Golem

Mannish? ARE YOU BLIND???
Natalie is the most interesting AND THE PRETTIEST of the VIP women and
indeed has THE BEST FIGURE--w/and without the boob job!

Well, mannishness is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but to each his own. ;)

Regards,

IdleHand

RAYBY47

The mention of actress Delia Sheppard below refers to a separate email from RAYBY47 regarding a mis-crediting of one of her co-stars.

Hi.

Having read your comments about my comments, I suspect you might be right about it being too early to declare Denise's acting talents DOA based on her performance in the Bond flick, and have added an amendment to that effect on my page. However, in Denise's case, whether or not her acting range is limited is not likely to matter all that much since, I think we both know, it's not her dramatic prowess that her fans are most interested in seeing. And since it's been a couple of years since she's shown what her fans want to see, one has to worry about her viability in an industry where there are plenty of other upcoming nymphets willing to take her place as flavor of the month.

As far as Delia Sheppard goes, it took me a few minutes to figure out what you were talking about -- some of the vidcaps in the picture gallery name (or misname) the actors in the scene. Unfortunately, that can't be helped much, since it wasn't I who made those pictures. (The vidcaps I do make never describe what film they're from or who's in the scene.) But thanks for the tip all the same.

A Winona fan, of course

Hello Winona/Apple fan.

Sorry you didn't care for my 2¢ on Winona. For what it's worth, I've been a fan of hers ever since I first saw her in Heathers — which is to say I've been a fan of her screen persona, as her offscreen life didn't much interest me and I never found her especially sexually appealing until comparatively recently (when she became less shy about treating the world to occasional eyefuls of her cleavage, predictably enough). However, even if I were a born-again believer in Winona's ideas and a lifetime donor to her causes, the comments I write tend to focus on what the celebrity's famous for at the time that I'm writing (or whatever I happen to know about them that strikes me as interesting), and in Winona's case there wasn't much she was popularly known for beyond keeping her hair short, dating all of Hollywood, and now, of course, the shoplifting debacle. If I get around to updating my comments, it probably won't be for anything more than to acknowledge that, perhaps as a result of the trial and all the sudden public scrutiny, she seems to have laid the asexual pixie thing to rest at long last.

Oh, and for what it's worth, there are plenty of other actresses on this site whose commentaries have even less to do with their work than Winona's. And some that are a lot less pleasant. ;)

Regards,

Golem

Sephiroth

Hi.

After looking over Leelee's credits to date, most of her credits either went unremembered (A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries) or were better off forgotten (Eyes Wide Shut). Deep Impact was a hit, but she wasn't particularly prominent in it. That leaves only the TV movie Joan of Arc which, what with the slew of other Joan of Arc flicks out now and slated to come out, isn't likely to be long remembered, either. Worse, the one thing she's known for at the moment -- the wholesome, virginal Joan -- is the sort of character that seldom is in much demand in Hollywood. She needs to land a good sexpot role to avoid getting typecast, and she needs to be in a hit now while she still has a little heat going for her -- either a regular role on a popular TV show or a major role in a successful film. If she's lucky enough to get the latter, the faster those clothes come off, the faster she can move on from playing kids and goodie-good characters -- and the more scripts are likely to come her way.

As for the enumerated "points" raised in your email (not all men are looking for nudity, not all men are only into looks, Leelee is beautiful, Leelee has money), I look at them like I look at the solemn declarations of most of the world that swears it never bought a Spice Girls album, never saw an episode of Baywatch -- and yet somehow the Spice Girls and Baywatch were number one the world over. It's also unlikely that you (or anyone) would have been looking for Leelee online if you weren't into her looks. (It's not like you're alone in that: I counted some 43 different sites devoted to Sarah Michelle Gellar listed at Star Maps; Sarah Gilbert, by contrast, has none.) And nudity? If we're honest with ourselves, I think we both know that if I had nude pix of Leelee posted here, your Three Points (although I count four) would be as forgotten as Wilson's Fourteen.

Oh, and as for the last Point -- Leelee has money -- remember that, no matter how beautiful or talented you or I might think she is, she's not a big enough star to command much of a salary. Between her minor character status in Deep Impact and the miserliness of TV, she's lucky if she got cab fare for the ride home.

Anyway, I'm not saying that her career is doomed -- if anything, I'm saying there's hope. It's just that at this point, unless she's extremely lucky in a way that most actresses are not, most of the hope lies beneath her clothes.

I'm including this particular email on the assumption that it's being sarcastic:

beautiful site

love-------

marie and jean, elisabeth, roby and leelee

Glad you like the site. It's always heartening to hear from visitors who aren't calling for my head to be mounted on a pike somewhere -- especially when the visitors are themselves featured on the site. ;)

(Of course, I have no way of knowing that you are who you say you are, but it was fun getting your email all the same.) :)

Warm regards,

Golem

I think you are mistaken as far as Leelee is concerned. She is good looking and talented. and dosen't need to portray a sexpot to get anywhere. I think she will end up as popular and talented as Jodie Foster. Give her some slack, she jut turned 17.

Jdnrdlnd

Leelee might be good-looking, and she might be very talented. Who knows? She might even be more talented than Jodie Foster; the problem is that actresses rarely get anywhere on account of their talent alone, and type-casting is a serious problem for all actors. (It drove Lysette Anthony out of Britain.) As Joan of Arc, Leelee's potential as glamour queen was de-emphasized, and nearly all actresses depend on that potential at some point just to get work. The fact that she's only 17 doesn't matter -- Hollywood eats its young as well as its old.

Sir;

I know everyone is intitled to there opinion, but I must dissagree with your write up on Leelee. She is very attractive, (so is Helen Hunt). And I don't think she will fade away as you might think. She doesn't have to do nude rolls to boost her career either. I wouldn't mind if she did, but I don't feel its a must for her. I do hope I am right and your Sir are not, for her sake too. I look forward to seeing her in the future as her career grows. Thank you for your time.

mlay

Hi.

From the sound of things in this month's Movieline, there won't be any shortage of Leelee appearances in film any time soon. This is certainly more work than I anticipated her getting, although it remains to be seen if any of these films will do much for her career. I hope they do; I'll be as happy as any other, less cynical Sobieski fan if she succeeds -- clothes or no clothes. Surprised, to be sure, but happy for her all the same. ;)

Out of curiosity, what leads you to believe that Leelee Sobieski is simply plain?...while it may just be my personal taste, I wouldn't have much of a problem believing she could serve as the seductive lead in a motion picture. She is somewhat young, but what really makes you feel that she straddles the fence between plain and beautiful...she is quite lovely, in the simplicity of classic beauty. Again, this may only be my own view, but I hope to enjoy seeing her in as many formats as possible, because she is truly a youthful beauty.

Jagdtiger28

While obviously this sort of thing is extremely subjective, I'd say that between the largish forehead and the nose that seems more of a continuation of her forehead than a protrusion from her face, Leelee's is a beauty that's more earthly than Olympian, which really doesn't matter much in the real world but is all-important in the rarified world of showbiz. Like you, I hope to see a lot more of her as well -- I just don't expect to.

You obviously do not have a good judge for talent, forecasting a mediocre career for Leelee Sobieski.

You are foolish for seeming to think that a successful career lies in being drop dead gorgeous. Have you ever heard of Bette Davis, Jessica Lange, Jodi Foster, Meryl Streep, or Sally Field?

Leelee not only deserved the Emmy nomination that she received for Joan of Arc, she should have won it. Only her age and her first nomination prevented her from winning.

Yes, it is true that you can be a mediocre actress with great looks, choose bad roles, and still be a success (ala Julia Roberts -- she turned down Sleepless in Seattle). But that is a rarity. The only things that will keep Leelee from being the next Meryl Streep are the roles she receives.

Mark these words. Assuming Leelee makes 2 movies a year, by the time she is 30, she will either be nominated for an Oscar or win an Emmy.

Jim

Well, let's hope you're right, Jim. I'd like to see things go well for Leelee as well, but I'm playing the odds that mainstream success favors the Demi Moore types over the Meryl Streeps. Leelee's acting talent has little to do with it. Even if I narrow the limiting factors down to the roles she gets, as you've done, that's still a pretty iffy factor for any actress. And the roles she's offered don't come out of a vacuum, after all -- sooner or later it all comes back to target audiences and focus groups, which means that sex appeal and type-casting are probably going to matter more for Leelee than her talent for drama, and it's for that reason that I predict that most of her future movie premieres will be held at video stores. But who knows? Perhaps her bit role in Eyes Wide Shut was enough to fix the problem. Or all the cleavage she's been treating us to in magazines and on TV while promoting her new movie. We'll see what happens with her after her current volley of films come and go.

Golem,

You know, I happened upon your site because I was trying to find out a little more about Leelee Sobieski, whom everyone keeps claiming I look exactly like. Fortunately for me, I'm 23 and not 18, so your comments about her "plain" appearance don't really bother me so much. However, the crap you're writing on here could really give a girl an inferiority complex. Ease up a little! I'm amused that you don't know why women would take your comments personally; if you think Shannon Elizabeth is not much to look at, you must be totally bored with average American women. You obviously like the shock factor thing cuz it gets you attention, but just like Howard Stern (who uses the same tactic) I'm under the impression you're an unattractive loser with nothing else to do. Don't get me wrong; I still listen to Howard on a regular basis. I just think people like you are ridiculous because you sit there and critique these beautiful women (exclude Leelee; yes, she does look like

The other amusement is that you (once again -- just like Howard Stern) claim that the answer is always getting naked. I think you ought to develop some new hobbies; this one's taking you down a warped road and obviously bugs the crap out of people judging from your long (and very entertaining) list of hate mail. I noticed that you even mention that you listen to Howard's five-hour long show every damn day; I think you're a little too impressionable, and perhaps you should try something a little more original than focusing only on naked women's bodies while saying shocking things to rile people up.

Just my observations... no offense intended...

Sarah

Hello Sarah.

It was refreshing to read that, for all your disagreement with my little comments, you were still able to enjoy the sprawling epic that my hate mail page has become. However, it seems there are a few things I haven't been very clear on:

Leelee's looks. Actually, I think your doppelganger's been looking pretty good recently -- perhaps she just needed to come of age a little more -- but whatever I think she looks like, it's relative to other celebrities currently in Hollywood. Some people have a tendency to lose sight of this. Line Leelee up with ten other women randomly snatched off the street, and chances are that she'll be the most attractive one of the bunch; line her up with ten of Hollywood's most beautiful actresses, though, and suddenly she might not be the belle of the ball anymore. She might even be the "plain" one. The point is that no one is ugly or beautiful without a frame of reference -- and if it's TV and film, which daily serve up the best that human genetics and clever make-up have been able to produce, one has to be a bit more finely discriminating than one would be ordinarily.

And unless otherwise specified, the frame of reference on The Iconophile is always TV and film.

Cyber shock jock. It seems a little silly to call the stuff on my site "shock" material when the same sort of thing is commonplace from the mouths of just about everyone offline. Especially women, who have the harshest judgements of all when commenting on the the Beautiful People of Hollywood. (Denise Richards is a "fake-titted airhead", Rose McGowan a "freak" and "pretentious slut", and even Janeane Garofalo is sometimes branded a "whiney, unfunny closet dyke".) I watch and talk about films every day, so for me this sort of frankness has never seemed particularly unusual or shocking. The only real difference between me and any other goofball with a celebrity site is that I write like I talk.

In any case, if my purpose were simply to rile people up, there are more provocative things I could do than to occasionally offer less than flattering commentary on celebrities, especially celebrities that few people have heard of or care about.

Lesser women than me might develop a complex. If they're not actresses or models, they have nothing to worry about; it's not them I'm talking about. I certainly can't be reasonably expected to coddle the egos of every emotional hemophiliac with an axe to grind and an email program whenever I write about physical appearances. Besides, not everything I say on my site is critical.

(And yes, I know why some women take my comments about celebrities as comments about them personally -- I just think it's silly that they do.)

Nudity now, nudity forever. It seems an overly simplistic prescription for ailing and stillborn careers, I know, but if it didn't work, actresses wouldn't keep turning to it. It's the reason why people still remember Rose McGowan despite her not having been in a film that anyone's seen in ages, and partially why she still has enough buzz left to land her gig on Charmed. It's why Denise Richards became such a big deal when Wild Things came out, and why she stopped being a big deal after she declared that she was done with nudity in films. It's why so many actresses and models in need of a quick boost claw their way into the pages of Playboy. It's what made cable TV the force that it is today. And, more importantly for this particular conversation, it's what drives the Internet and most of its innovations.

Time for a new, less offensive hobby. Right now I've got too many hobbies; this is simply the only one you've seen. Besides, I tend to pick my hobbies based on whether or not I like them, not whether everyone else likes them.

You must be an ugly loser. Maybe, maybe not. But is your opinion of me any less provocative and critical than my opinions of certain celebrities? If it isn't, then the moral high ground from which your observations were made might be a little shaky.

And on that note, I think it's time for me to finally call it a night. Hopefully I managed to shed some light on the reasoning behind the silliness of the site. If not, well, it was still fun reading your email. :)

Regards,

Golem

P.S.: I don't know if it's you or my email program, but for some reason the last line of your first paragraph got cut off.

Leelee Sobieski's hommage is innocent against with all these others. Must we denegrate every thespian? Public nudity for its own or commercialism's sake demonstrates bereft morality. Don't we need heros anymore? Can we exist at all without people we admire for goodness sake?

Is your bitterness against this fine young lady rooted in depravity? This site is expensive, no? What is it, some sort of talent hawking? Publicity? Come on, gimme da shimme. Who are you and what is your true goal in life? Have you ever met any of these women? If not, why not?

Bubba

Hello Bubba.

Quite the questionnaire you sent me. Some of the questions I hope I've answered in my recent addendum to my Leelee page. As for the rest:

Must we denigrate every thespian? No, but we should certainly offer honest commentary on them. And if you look around my site, you'll find that it's not every actress who gets a tongue-lashing. Besides, my comments about Leelee are hardly "denigrating".

Public nudity is bad -- what happened to heroes with all their clothes on? First off, there's nothing wrong with nudity, on film or in private. Secondly, what do actresses and models, nude or not, have to do with heroes? In this era of unprecedented terrorism, turning to Hollywood nymphets to find your heroes might be one of the more misguided things you can do.

Is your bitterness against Leelee rooted in depravity or just pure evil? Both. But who says I'm bitter?

Your site is expensive, no? To put it mildly, yes.

Is publicity how you pay for your site? I wish, although publicity alone wouldn't be much help.

Who are you and what's your goal in life? I've been working on that question all my life; when I figure it out, I'll be sure to post it.

Have you met any of the actresses on your site? Yes and no. I've met a few in person, but most of my brushes with celebrity have been by email. (I used to run into them all the time when I lived in Westwood, but since then my physical encounters with them have been few and far between.)

Let me know if this doesn't answer your questions.

Golem

Hello Bubba.

Quite the questionnaire you sent me. Some of the questions I hope I've answered in my recent addendum to my Leelee page. As for the rest:

Must we denigrate every thespian? No, but we should certainly offer honest commentary on them. And if you look around my site, you'll find that it's not every actress who gets a tongue-lashing. Besides, my comments about Leelee are hardly "denigrating".

[Bubba and/or Carolyn]

Hello again, Bubba. (Or is it "Carolyn" now?)

While I'm moved by your unflagging interest in my Leelee remarks, I can't help but think that you only gave them a cursory glance. Nowhere on the page, for example, is there anything in the spirit of "Show me your tits!" What little tit-talk there actually is on the page basically says that, like Shannon Elizabeth, Denise Richards, and Uma Thurman before her -- all of whom were unknown before their nude scenes put them in the spotlight -- Leelee is not likely to become a household word until she takes that extra, tried-and-true career step. And since part of my role as webmaster of this site is to keep my visitors informed about the number and types of pictures they can expect from this or that actress based on what her career has produced thus far, I have to keep things like the actress' willingness to work nude, the types of roles she picks, her public image, and other factors in mind when I make my forecasts. It may all seem crassly formulaic -- and it is -- but it's also been pretty accurate.

As for the "denigration" of discussing actresses and models in terms of their sex appeal, it's a bit like the denigration of discussing race cars in terms of their speed. Sex appeal makes up the bulk of what many actors do for a living, after all, Leelee included. She may have many talents, but the biggest factor in her career, like with any actor, will always be how she looks. (How many other jobs can you think of that require head shots just to get an interview?)

Of course, angry reactions to buzzwords on my site like "nude" and "topless" in the context of one's favorite actress are part of the permanent landscape of my email inbox. What's surprising about your letter, though, is your objection to the word "nymphet" regarding Leelee on the one hand and your insistence on the title "hero and lesson to millions" on the other. Even if you thought I was speaking in strained mythological or entomological terms with "nymphet", how exactly is Leelee a legitimate hero to millions? (Especially when it's unlikely that as many people know who she is yet.) Remember that playing a hero to millions in TV's Joan of Arc doesn't count.

Bitter and depraved,

Golem

You are a sick, disgusting pervert. Leelee Sobieski rocks and don't you ever forget it.

Bob

Thanks much for the feedback, Bob. But who said Leelee doesn't rock? My web page, while cynical about her commercial success, frankly admits that she rocks in all other respects except poetry.

Hey, sorry I called you that. But the fact that you think Leelee will only be succesfull if she takes her top off on screen does NOT sit well with me

Bob

That the road to Hollywood success for attractive actors is the one less clothed is a time-honored truism, and is not meant as a slight against Leelee. (Certainly she's not the only one on my site to get such a summary.) In any case, my updated comments for October concede the possibility that Leelee might in fact beat the odds and go on to fame and fortune fully clothed, since, as with Janeane Garofalo, people keep putting her in movies no matter how well the movies do.

Thank you,
Paula "Romy White" (a huge Mira Sorvino fan)

Hello "Romy". :)

To answer your question about the "pod person" label, I thought I was fairly clear:

Think of her as Mr. Spock's comelier cousin -- very logical, very literal, and almost completely ignorant of the non-academic world. (This is understandable when one considers that she lived her higher education insulated from the rest of the world in the ghettoes of Harvard academia, where men are still "white males" and women are "womyn".)

Which is to say that, by all accounts, Mira is one of those people whose concept of the world came almost entirely from the theoretical world of books -- particularly those of her various women's studies classes, and consequently she comes off a wee naive in interviews. Educated, but naive. That's all. (Hey, I'm just working from what I read in her articles.)

"And what about talent?" you ask. What about it? As you might expect from a site called "The Iconophile", I'm generally none too concerned about talent unless it's exceptional. And let's face it: neither are most people. Most Sorvino fans admire her talent like Playboy fans admire its articles. Sure, she's a beautiful woman who's also talented. But it's her beauty that makes people notice her talent at all (which, by itself, is quite frankly not enough to distinquish her from most other actresses). If you and I were really into talent, we'd be quibbling over what I wrote about Kathy Bates, not Mira Sorvino, and I'd be writing to you at "number1fan" instead of "romy".

So is this a "hate site"? Not at all. I'm simply writing what most people (well, guys at least) think when they're sitting at home watching endless cable TV. The deciding factor of whether or not to watch something like Mimic is rarely "Is it a good movie?", but "Does Mira Sorvino get naked in this?" Think of me as a kind of one-man Beavis and Butthead, commenting on individual celebrities instead of videos. This a site based on superficiality, on image, not hate.

(And even if it were, it still wouldn't be "pointless": most every "fan site" out there slavishly proclaims its featured celebrity the alpha and the omega of human beauty and achievement; The Iconophile offers a more realistic counterpoint.)

Anyway, sermon's over ... you can close your Bible now.

Michele Weinberger
(A Sorvino fan who nonetheless can see when the Emperor has no clothes ... and gets aroused)

Adam

I have a website and I don't like getting mean email, so I'm going to try to keep my email from being mean. I am writing to say that I find the intro on Uma to be very insulting not just to Uma, but to women in general. The whole thing about having another kid and getting old so that no one wants to see her naked really got to me. I'm not oblivious to the fact, that Uma is very popular because of her appearance, but I believe her to be respected as an actress as well. You said that she can't act. She was nominated for an academy award. Considering the fact that it was Diane Wiest that beat her that year, I do not believer her nomination to be solely for her looks. You also said that, and I'm not quoting you, something to the effect that she wasn't even noticed until Dangerous Liasons when she bared her chest. That was one of her early movies. She was only eighteen or nineteen, I believe. When was she going to get noticed before that?

Might I suggest that you consider making your intro more friendly? I know that you're probably not going to change your intro based on my objection. I know that I might get a nasty email in return, but I just had to share my opinion with you and let you know how I feel.

Laura

I entered your website because I've been searching the Web looking for someone who trashed "Mad Dog and Glory." Finally, i found one. You did not have to be a stalker perv to like the movie. a) not great, it was never dull, and Robert Deniro, Kathy Baker, and Uma Thurman are not exactly Ron Jeremy, Shannon Tweed and Therese Russell. b) There were about two dozen memorable, quotable lines. c) The climax was a fist fight between two-badasses, Deniro and Bill Murray. d)The soundtrack, with Louis Prima and Dean Martin, as well as Cyprus Hill, kicked ass. e) It is, to date, the only half-way decent movie Caruso has ever done.

Matt

Hello Matt.

Actually, I never trashed Mad Dog, nor did I say one has to be a stalker perv to like the movie. What I did say was that of the films she's made, only Pulp Fiction and Dangerous Liaisons were particularly successful. Mad Dog and Glory is a fine film, but not that many people rushed out to see it. In fact, most people have never even heard of it -- apart from fans of the people in it. (Hence my "stalker perv" comment.) That's all.

Oh, and for what it's worth, if you put up a David Caruso site, I'll be happy to post a comment there to the effect that Mad Dog was his finest work. ;)

Golem

Hi Golem,

I came to your Uma Thurman page as a fan of hers and was of course appalled by your comments, (which I'm sure is the desired reaction you were going for). I was naturally all ready to come and fire bomb your house, but I looked around the rest of your site a bit and actually kind of like what you're doing. Your comments on a lot of the actresses are actually rather astute. Even your comments on Uma have some basis, but I think you miss the bigger picture with her and so I'll offer a counter opinion. I think the problem here is you don't seem to think that someone can appreciate both her beauty AND her acting. I think you also misrepresent Uma's own attitudes to her profession. She makes none of the pretences about herself that you claim. She's one of the most realistic actresses around about how she's perceived by the public. I shall now pick apart your comments. ;)

Let's face it: no matter how much we liked Uma Thurman in Dangerous Liaisons and Pulp Fiction, anyone who saw Batman & Robin or The Avengers knows that it's not for her acting ability that she gets cast in movies.

Christopher.

Hello Christopher.

It was a lot of fun reading your comments about my comments. The irony is that I've actually been meaning to rewrite my Uma page for some time now. When I first put it up, it was actually a fairly glowing review, then got ugly the very evening I sat through most of Batman & Robin. Since then my opinion of her has mellowed out some, so I'll probably be attempting to reflect that in my write-up sometime soon. Regardless, though, there's a few hairs I feel compelled to split regarding your email, but I'll save that for when I have a little more time; right now my post-holiday mop-up is taking longer than I had anticipated. Until then, though, know that I did get your email and will definitely be responding in more detail.

Well, it took me a while to find a moment to deal with Uma, but I finally got around to putting a kinder, gentler face on my hitherto angry commentary to better reflect my mellower stance on Thurman's career. I'm sure you'll find it only slightly less objectionable...

But now let's turn the proctoscope back the other way:

I think the problem here is you don't seem to think that someone can appreciate both her beauty AND her acting.

In theory, of course someone can appreciate both her acting and her looks. In theory someone might even appreciate only her acting. And though you or I might snicker about it, I'm sure there are a lot of little girls out there who still think the Spice Girls were really good singers. But the fact remains that if Uma weren't beautiful, chances are that neither of us would have ever heard of her. (Imagine if she had had a mastectomy when she whipped off her gown in Dangerous Liaisons -- would you have even bothered to email me? Would anyone?)

I think you also misrepresent Uma's own attitudes to her profession. She makes none of the pretences about herself that you claim. She's one of the most realistic actresses around about how she's perceived by the public.

I suppose here you're referring to Uma's comments in last year's Premiere, where she claims her public image no longer bothers her and that she's finally come to embrace her sexual appeal. Hence her self-described "sex-bomb" parts in Batman & Robin and The Avengers. That was last year. This year, in November's Elle, she seems to regret that back-to-basics approach and rejoices in the more conservative roles of her next few films, which she feels are putting her "back on track." And even in the Premiere article, the whole actress/bimbo issue seems very much on her mind.

Well actually, she bet out "beauties" and much bigger stars Julia Roberts and Demi Moore for the part of Poison Ivy soley because of her acting ability. She actually got a fair amount of acclaim for the part too. The Avengers was a big disaster for everyone, you might as well say that Sean Connery didn't get cast for his acting ability because he certainly didn't show any either. Also, she's described both those roles as "sex bomb" roles, so I think she's fully aware of people jerking off at home. You don't parade around in a skintight leather catsuit and expect people not to treat you like a sex object.

That may or may not be the real reason Uma got the part, but again, if she wasn't beautiful, she wouldn't even be up for the part. And even if we agree that she's more talented than Demi Moore and Julia Roberts, that still doesn't make her an especially good actress any more than it makes Britney Spears a great singer if we agree that she's a better singer than Posh Spice.

As for the "sex-bomb" parts: (1) Uma herself describes them as a recent departure from her usual sort of role, and has been wary of such sex-kitten parts ever since the hubbub of her early days. (2) Her concept of "sex-bomb" is a little out of date -- catsuits might work for a while for Jeri Ryan on TV, but in the movies (which is to say "on video" and "on cable"), I think most people are used to seeing a lot less on an actress when they beat off.

I think it's unfair of you to critisise her for not being a genius when she makes no claim to be.

Uma Thurman at home may or may not be a bright person; my site isn't concerned with her. Uma Thurman as public figure and media creation -- the "thinking man's pinup" -- unfairly or not has a lot to live up to. Claudius didn't want to be emperor of Rome, but the soldiers made him wear the crown anyway; as long as Uma contrives to be insulted when people say she's smart in the way that she does ("That's total insulting! It's a put-down of all women, certainly all actresses.... 'And she's smart.' It means underneath it all, she's not really.") she obliges herself to wear the "smart" crown whether it fits or not. And anyone making themselves the poster child for anything invites being criticized if they don't live up to their image.

Now I really take issue with [your saying that her career "is based squarely on her physique"] simply because there are thousands of beautiful women with great breasts trying to make it in the movies, and they fail.

It's true that there are thousands of other women who get naked in films and never get anywhere (hence this site), but part of the reason for that is that they get naked in low profile, lowbrow sorts of films. Once they do that, all their credibility as "serious" actresses goes out the window. Uma, on the other hand, got naked in a high profile, highbrow movie, so while she was still looked at as Hollywood's newest sex icon, she at least got offers for more "serious" roles.

I also think that if her career was really based on a 10 second topless scene, then it would have ended as soon as she refused to do any more. But ten years later it's still going strong. You only have to look at some of the other actresses on your site who you rightly point out had their careers halted when they refused to do nude scenes, but Uma's career only got stronger.

With the exception of Pulp Fiction and, to a lesser degree, The Truth About Cats & Dogs, not that many people have actually gone out to see Uma not be naked. The fact that she's still working without anyone knowing it doesn't mean her career is still going strong. After all, Jennifer Connelly is still finding work, but I defy you to find ten people who are aware of it.

I don't think an actress/actor should be judged by how commercially successful they are.

Depends on the context. If you're talking about the actor's talent, then obviously the success of the film is irrelevant. Certainly this is true of Janeane Garofalo, who's scarcely had a hit to her name but keeps getting work. But if you're talking about the actor's popularity, then the popularity of the film -- especially one in which the actor is a leading character -- does have some bearing.

I don't see why "stalker pervs" would be interested in most of Uma's films either.

By "stalker pervs", a term I use a lot on this site, I refer to the armchair variety, that is, hard-core fans that cut out all of Uma's magazine pictures and keep them in plastic sheet protectors for posterity, who frequent her various webshrines and watch for any trivial details they can glean from various newsgroups, who might even cover a wall or two of their room with her image. Or maintain a really caustic webpage.

It's amazing when I talk about Uma with people how many will say they like her acting but don't find her physically attractive at all.

That certainly is amazing. I've never met anyone who admires Uma for her acting alone; the ones that don't find her physically appealing never seem particularly impressed by her acting.

Time to shut up? Shut up about what? This must be your mistaken idea of what Uma's been saying or thinks again. She doesn't get naked in films because she simply doesn't need too.

"Shut up" refers to her sermonizing about the curse borne by beautiful actresses when it comes to getting taken seriously. And I'll be the judge of whether or not she needs to get naked in films again.

It won't be long before she's as old and out of work as Shannon Tweed and she'll have to get naked just to get on cable TV, but by then no one will want to see her with her clothes off.

Now you're OBVIOUSLY just trying to wind people up with this little gem. It's just a silly comment and ignores the facts, Uma has been chased by everyone from Peter Jackson to Christopher Hampton to Merchant Ivory to star in HIGHLY respectible "fully clothed" roles in the next few years. There are less and less reasons for her to get naked as she gets older because her career is actually on an upturn.

People loved Bruce Lee on account of his charisma but more importantly because of his martial arts skills. If Bruce suddenly decided to stop making martial arts films and focus on Shakespeare movies, fewer and fewer people would show up to his films, despite all his charisma and once huge fan base. Even if he turned out to be a fantastic Shakespearean actor, unless he could pull his weight and continue to be a box office draw, fewer and fewer movie makers would be able to afford to cast him when they could sign on other actors who were taken more seriously as dramatic actors. This is how I see it for Uma. She'll continue to get work as long as she's regarded as a beautiful actress, but because she became famous not for her acting but for her bared chest in Dangerous Liaisons, her workload won't be near as heavy as it would if she put out on camera now and then, and when age starts to take its toll on her looks, we'll all be seeing a lot less of the thinking man's pinup. That might be well and good for her, what with her being raised by a Buddhist monk and all, but if it isn't -- and at some point it won't be when the money from her earlier success runs out -- I've seen her future and its name is Shannon Tweed.

Did you really think about these comments?

What do you think?

Well, I hope this clarifies my position on the Uma question. It's certainly less hostile than it used to be. (And hey -- if you had to sit through Batman & Robin and The Avengers, you'd be hostile, too.) But I'm sure this won't be the last email I get about it.

Well I'm dispointed. This was supposed to be better? More mellow? You basically just said the same thing but rearranged it a bit. If anything it's worse, before I could write off your comments as "unthinking", now you've obviously thought about it and you just look stupid. My god, your "new improved" intro on your website is truly one of the most misguided and moronic things I have ever read.

Critising Uma because she plays "beautiful" roles is like critising Danny De Vito because he plays "short" roles. Your whole viewpoint is filled with so many contradictions and holes that it can't be taken seriously at all. Your quite sad nudity fetish has clouded rational thought. No one cares that Uma did a 10 second topless scene in Dangerous Liaisons anymore. No one cared much back then. You totally overrate the power's of Uma's chest. It's only in your mind that Uma became successful because of that incy wincy scene. It has NOTHING to do with her success since. NOTHING. I don't care how high the "brow" was. Uma is a great actress, she get's great roles, she will continue to get great roles. Grow up and get over the nude scene already, it was 12 friggin years ago!! Come back to reality.

And Happy New Year!!

Chris, (not feeling so friendly anymore)

[Sigh]

Of course the new write-up is mellower than the old one; it may say essentially the same thing, but the old one was a lot more hostile about it.

And how is the intro "truly one of the most misguided and moronic things" you have ever read? (Why isn't it the most misguided? I'd like to be the most in something...) All it says is that the way you first become known is usually the way you're remembered. Valerie Bertinelli has done several TV series and God knows how many made-for-TV movies since the ancient One Day at a Time, but the article about her hasn't been written yet that doesn't mention that series. Maria Schneider still gets grief for the "butter" line in Last Tango in Paris. Fans of Rose McGowan still look back fondly on Scream, a movie she was scarcely in. It doesn't matter how many movies you do or how many years have passed -- you're remembered for the movies that made you famous.

(Besides, in this age of cable and rentable videos, the issue of how long ago a movie was made is largely irrelevant.)

Uma has made a fair number of films already, but the highlights of her career are still her nudie flicks and Pulp Fiction, which is why those movies keep getting brought up in nearly every article ever written about her, and if she were to die today, those would be the movies people remember her for. And did I "overrate the powers of Uma's chest"? The part she played in Dangerous Liaisons was far too small by itself to warrant the tremendous buzz she got for it; most of the buzz regarding her in that movie was ultimately about her chest and little else, and that buzz is why her career took off as it did.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. You seem to be under the impression that I criticize her for having a career based mostly on her looks. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I did criticize her for is the same thing I criticize a lot of actresses on this site for: becoming famous for their beauty and then fighting it. Some of them even become resentful about it. But in Uma's case, she at least had the good sense (or good fortune) to bare herself in the circumstances that she did, which has allowed her a greater range of scripts. (If she had chosen to get naked on a late-night cable erotic thriller, chances are she'd still be doing those.) But the fact is that Uma did become very concerned about the public perception of her after her nudie flicks, which is why she had to explain in the Premiere article that you've been citing that she's no longer concerned about it, although she does seem to waver on that. My site was simply saying "Get over yourself."

Anyway, Uma may or may not be a good actress (I doubt we'll ever agree on that), but she's certainly not an exceptional actress. No one thinks "Olivier, DeNiro, and Thurman". But she is, at least to a lot of people, exceptionally beautiful. So that's how she'll be perceived, and that's how she'll be remembered when she's gone. That's all. Worship her all you like; after all, she's famous for playing Venus. ;)

Niel

Probably not. ;)

Actually, I'm not bitter at all, and I think Tilly's a fine actress. But let's face it -- she's pretty much been typecast as a bimbo, Oscar or no Oscar, a fact that she herself gets bitter about in various interviews. (To wit, her Oscar nomination was in fact for playing the bimbo girlfriend in Bullets Over Broadway, if I recall.) And though she may play a hundred non-bimbo roles between now and her death, though she may raise the standard of acting to new, undiscovered heights, her bimbo roles are what she'll always be remembered for.

Dem's da breaks.

Golem

Samala16

Hello. I'm not sure if you'll get this response or not, since my domain name doesn't seem to have fully propagated to the new server and some of my emails haven't been able to make it past the outbox yet. But here goes.

First of all, I'm sure your sister [for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it that you two are siblings] works very hard, and I don't believe I've written anything about her to suggest that she's untalented. (The subject of her talent didn't come up at all, if I recall.) For the record, I think Liza's plenty talented; she's the reason I watch "Whatever" every time I stumble on it while channel surfing, even though the movie itself is a wee too "Afterschool Special" for my taste.

Secondly, whatever Liza's talents, Hollywood is full of talented actors; I don't think that it's any coincidence that Liza landed the "Gilmore Girls" gig when the producer of the show was already familiar with her from "Stir of Echoes". Most actors whose name isn't already a household word need some sort of foot in the door to get work; this, I believe, was Liza's.

As for getting a life, well ... I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Regards,

Golem

Well, I come to your site again to see if maybe you realized what an idiot you are and changed things around....Seems you didn't, but I did get to see your little reply. I am going to make this very clear #1 I am Liza's sister I have no reason to lie, so Don't humor me buddy. #2 the birthday you have for her is wrong, maybe you should make sure the things you write are true....Just an Idea. Her birthday is June 5, 1978, and she was born in New Jersey. I am going to repeat again Liza got her part on the Gilmore Girl's because she has talent, not because she knew someone. Obviously you know nothing about the business. I don't know what makes you think you are an expert anyway??? Because you have a webpage??? I DON'T THINK SO. Maybe you should start doing something with your time besides insulting people and making false accusations, because you are pissing a lot of people off, and I don't need to see this poor excuse for a sight when I am looking my sister up.

Samala16

Well, if you are indeed Liza's sister, that would certainly explain what Liza uses to model her Paris character from "Gilmore Girls" on. But let me address some of your issues:

1. Semi-famous relations. I get email from people every day claiming some connection to this or that celebrity, some of them credible, some of them not. Without any proof, though, you're as much Liza's sister as I am, and in any case, for purposes of this little email exchange, it really doesn't matter who you are.
2. Liza's birthday. Even Liza herself would have to admit that she hasn't exactly become a household name yet, and until she does, personal information regarding her is pretty hard to come by. My source for Liza's place and date of birth is IMDB.com. It might be wrong, but at the moment it still has a wee more credibility than the angry but unverifiable sources that occasionally email me. Of course, if I learn from a more authoritative source that her birthday is something other than what I've posted, I'll be sure to update my page to reflect the new information.
3. Liza's parts. Again, no one is disputing Liza's talent or right to play "Paris" on "Gilmore Girls". But crediting Liza's getting the part to talent alone when she already had a past work relationship with the producer sounds like the blind cheerleading of a fan who likes her but really doesn't know her.
4. Knowing nothing about the business. If you really believe that the rewards of Tinseltown or any other business are given to talent alone, I can only assume that you haven't worked anywhere for very long yet.
5. Insulting the masses. Thus far, you're the only one who's ever complained about my Liza Weil remarks. And as much as you say you hated the site the first time you saw it, such claims tend to lose force when you keep coming back.

Golem

Look, I really don't give a shit if you think I am her sister or not. The fact is your facts on that page are wrong and I don't like it. I don't like people who are critics who have never done anything in their life. You get a reoccurring part on a TV show and then you can talk O.K.??? As for no-one else complaining. No-one else has seen how far Liza has come, and how RARE it is to make it in this business. You get complaints about everything else you say. Maybe you should reevaluate YOURSELF, instead of looking at everyone else....

Samala16

Your continued interest in my site is nothing short of heart-warming. :)

The fact is your facts on that page are wrong and I don't like it.

I'm afraid that until I can verify what you're saying, it'd be premature of me to call it a "fact" just now. But I'll keep it in mind if and when I can find another source to agree with you.

You get a reoccurring part on a TV show and then you can talk O.K.???

Sounds very well thought out. Perhaps someday -- after you've managed a sprawling website for a while and have learned HTML, Java, and cold fusion -- perhaps then you'll have the technical expertise and life experience necessary to have an opinion of celebrity sites like mine. And perhaps after I've led a large country during a time of war I'll be qualified to form an opinion of Hitler.

As for no-one else complaining. No-one else has seen how far Liza has come

If the only reason anyone would have a complaint about my page is if they had your unique perspective on how far Liza's come -- and, by your own admission, no one else does -- then there's no compelling reason for me to "fix" the page.

You get complaints about everything else you say

Not everything. There are certain pages on the site that get a lot of people rankled, but most of the pages -- including Liza's -- don't seem to bother anyone except you. And in any case, it's not the purpose of my site to gain everyone's approval.

Maybe you should reevaluate YOURSELF, instead of looking at everyone else....

I wasn't aware that you alone were entitled to opinions of other people. Mea culpa.

I'd write more, but it's time for me to finally get some sleep today...

Regards,

Golem

Well... indeed if I rem correctly, Liza does have a younger sister, Samatha.. so you may be talking to her.. And if I wa her sister, I would be annoyed as anything about what crap was being said about her. You don't know her and you have no right to be putting her or any of the other celebs down.. Liza earned her way!

For starters... you want to validate being 21 or 22.. give me a f*cking break.. I know for a fact that's wrong.. b/c she did graduate from high school in 1995. (Look up the wb website.. her credentials are there.. and look... it gives you the background that she was born in NJ as well as where she lived growing up? How about that? How do I know that? B/c she graduated from the same high school as I did.. she was a year behind me.. I"m 26.. unless she was a braniac... well... she wasn't rally a brainac... She was a sweet, down to earth girl. She actually dated these two guys that were at the time best friends to my now exbf....so, yeah.. we knew each other and sometimes hung out... I was floored to be wactching TV one night and recognized her voice.. to see it was her.. And damn right, we are proud of our hometown girl.. I rem our high school newspaper doing a story on her back in high school... with regards to her already hitting the theatres.. Here's some trivia for you.. but you don't

Anyhow, I would apprecaite it if you check your facts about Liza's birthdate, birthplace and republish them, not just for me and Samatha.. but the rest of her friends and family and supporters from ggood ole Pennsylvania!

lansgirl26

Thanks much for the WB bio tip -- I found one there once before, but it offered no information on Liza's date or place of birth. (I'm just a guy with a Mac who watches way too much TV, not an entertainment reporter, so I have to rely on such external sources for my information.)

Anyway, the suggestion that Liza got the Gilmore Girls job at least in part because the producer was already familiar with her work in Stir of Echoes is not meant to insinuate that Liza is the meritless beneficiary of Hollywood nepotism, just that the producer was already comfortable with Liza and her talents, and that this probably afforded her consideration over other talented actresses with whom the producer was not already familiar. My page goes on to say, for what it's worth, that Liza is the only reason I sit through the show; cynical though my perspective may be, I'm as rabid a Liza fan as the next geek with a web page.

Regards,

Golem