Quantcast
Channel: Gawker
Viewing all 24829 articles
Browse latest View live

Saturday Night Live Forgets to Replace Weekend Update's Colin Jost

$
0
0

Saturday Night Live Forgets to Replace Weekend Update's Colin Jost

Yesterday news broke that comedian Michael Che would be replacing Cecily Strong on the Weekend Update news desk this fall. As welcome as a new black player is on a variety show that so often lacks, well, variety, most couldn't help but wonder, "why do we need another dude?"

For fairness, balance, and the interest of quieting white males, why not replace Colin Jost? Do you even know who Colin Jost is? You may not remember him as that guy who mansplained a Harold to you at a kegger some years ago, I would assume. Without further ado, here is a list of suitable replacements for Jost:

  • Cecily Strong
  • Kate Berlant
  • Casey Jane Ellison
  • Jessica Williams
  • Flo from the Progressive Commercials
  • LaKendra Tookes
  • Lane Moore
  • Leslie Jones
  • Anne Lane
  • Alana Johnston
  • Joan Rivers' corpse
  • Nicki Minaj
  • Lauren Lapkus
  • Stephanie Allyne
  • Your kooky aunt
  • Penny Proud
  • A picture of Jane Curtin
  • Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century
  • Miranda July
  • A drunk Michelle Rodriguez
  • Courtney Stodden
  • Jewish Gwyneth Paltrow
  • That "Hello I'm Shelley Duvall" video
  • One of Gilda Radner's cancerous cells
  • A copy of Rookie Magazine
  • A set of The Simple Life DVDs
  • Anatomical model of a vagina
  • Any lunch lady

[Image via TimeOut]

Morning After is a new home for television discussion online, brought to you by Gawker. Follow @GawkerMA and read more about it here.


Is Online Dating Worth It? An FAQ

$
0
0

Is Online Dating Worth It? An FAQ

You've probably heard of online dating. You may even have a few friends that do it. But, despite your curiosity, you haven't been able to convince yourself to actually try it out. We're here to answer some of your burning questions.

I'm like a walking commercial for online dating. I tried OkCupid for about a week, met a girl within a couple days, and two and a half years later, we're getting married. Dating sites would like you to think this is a common occurrence, but the more people I talk to, the more I learn that everyone's experience is different.

However, I've also learned that there are a lot of misconceptions and fears about online dating that prevent people from giving it a try. And, while I can't promise everyone's experience will be as great as mine, I do think it's worth a shot. Here are a few questions I often get from people who are curious...but haven't yet taken the plunge.

Are people really doing this?

When it comes to the internet, there's not much people aren't doing. The question is whether the people doing it are the ones you'd want to date. And you'd be surprised.

Online dating is kind of like farting in public. Most people won't admit it, but plenty of them do it. Unlike farting in public, though, online dating's stigma is quickly going away. If you ask around, you'll be surprised how many people you know are doing it. It's not just internet-addicted geeks (myself notwithstanding).

What if someone I know sees my profile?

What do you have to be embarrassed about? Didn't you read the answer to question 1? Remember: there are more people doing this than you probably realize. If one of your friends is going to judge you for trying to find love, then maybe they just aren't very nice. And if you're saying stupid stuff on your profile...well, don't. If you wouldn't want a friend to see it, you probably wouldn't want it to be the first thing a potential date sees.

More importantly: on most dating sites, your profile isn't truly "public". The only people who can see your profile are other people signed up for the site. So if someone you know sees your profile...well, they're on the site too, aren't they? Neither of you have anything to be embarrassed about. I ran into a couple friends on OkCupid, and it ended up being really funny—and we ended up talking a lot more about our experience later on.

Isn't online dating unsafe?

Sure, meeting strangers can be unsafe. B but consider this: meeting someone online, especially after you have a chance to vet them, is no less safe than meeting someone at a bar or a club. In fact, unless you have a buddy system with Batman, it's probably safer.

That said, it's only safer if you take the necessary precautions: don't post personally identifiable information (like your phone number or address) on your profile, and only give it out after you've messaged with someone enough to feel comfortable giving it out. Schedule your date for a public place, let someone know where you are, and so on. We've talked about this in detail before, so check out that post for more info.

Doesn't everybody just lie online?

Slow down, Dr. House. Sure, it happens: This person adds a few inches to his height, that person hides a few inches from their waistline, and you get a big surprise when you meet in person. But that guy you met at the bar lied about being married, too. People don't lie because it's the internet. People lie because sometimes people are dumb.

Fortunately, not everyone does it. Plenty of people realize that it's better to be honest, lest they lose points as soon as they walk in the room. You'll have to deal with a few liars, but you'll quickly learn to read between the lines. (By the way, it should go without saying, but this goes both ways: don't lie on your profile either.)

Online dating seems really impersonal.

That's not a question, but I'll forgive you. Keep in mind thatyou're only "online" for a small portion of your interaction with someone—after a few messages, you're usually out on a date, interacting in meat space.

That said, the "searching for dates" portion of the process can feel impersonal—scanning people's profiles, looking at pictures, responding to some messages and X-ing others out. But we often do the same thing in real life: we walk into a social gathering, size people up, ask who's single, and so on.

"But what about just meeting people organically?" I can hear some of you say. Think of it like this: instead of waiting for Mr. or Mrs. right to appear in front of you, you're taking an active role in finding someone who shares your interests and values. It hardly feels impersonal when you put it that way. (Well, most of the time).

Are paid sites better than free ones?

"Better" is relative. You probably have a chance of getting less "spam" on paid sites, but that's just one portion of the equation. Free sites might skew younger or have more members, while some paid sites might contain more serious relationship-seekers. There are pros and cons to each, and it's better to evaluate each site's advantages rather than worrying about free vs paid.

What should I say in my profile? How much should I reveal?

Let's start by going back to a point I made earlier: don't lie. We all try to put forward the best version of ourselves, but try to avoid forming your persona based on success statistics. You'll have better luck if you're honest.

Most importantly: don't overthink it. Talk about yourself, what you like to do, and who you are. If you're funny, be funny, but don't force it. Don't be overly self-deprecating, don't make offensive comments, and try not to write the same tired jokes as everyone else ("The most embarrassing thing I'm willing to admit is that I'm on OkCupid" or "I'm so bad at talking about myself!"). You can write as much or as little as you want, but be careful—too much and you run the risk of oversharing, too little and people won't have anything to go off of.

Lastly: choose a good picture! We have a whole separate article about this, so I won't go into too much detail here, but don't fill your profile up with boring head shots. Instead, try something active. Choose photos of you doing what you love, you with friends and family, and something that shows your face and body well enough for people to know what you look like.

What should I say in my messages?

Like your profile, keep your messages fairly short—but not so short that it's generic and useless ("hey girl u r cute"). Write a couple sentences about something you saw in their profile that interested you, something about yourself that you share in common, and ask a question—that way they have somewhere to start with their response.

At what point should we meet in real life?

Meeting in person varies from site to site, and from person to person—but err on the side of early. This isn't an online forum for endless chatting. It's a dating site, so once you've established that you're both interested, ask them out on a date! If you wait too long, they may think you aren't interested in and move on.

I'm getting no responses to the messages that I send out. It's frustrating!

This is a common complaint—often from men—and there are a few reasons it could happen. Give your profile a once-over and see if there might be any off-putting remarks. Make sure you're sending messages that aren't too short and quippy, or too long and detailed. If you need some help, have a friend critique your profile, or post it in a forum like /r/okcupid (or whatever site you're using). That helped me a ton when I started out.

Secondly: it's hard at first, but you have to think of online dating as a numbers game. Don't get too attached to people's online profiles. Send out as many messages as you can to anyone that seems cool—you'll get a few messages back, and maybe a few of those will turn into dates. It becomes a lot less stressful once you realize that the first stage is just about initiating contact, not looking for the "perfect person" based on their online persona.

I'm getting a billion messages without having done anything. It's overwhelming!

A more common problem for women, chances are a lot of the messages you're receiving are junk. Just like an overflowing email inbox, don't keep checking your messages throughout the day. Turn off notifications, set aside a block of time to go through it all at once and respond to the good stuff. It's much less overwhelming, and pretty easy to weed through.

Tell it to me straight: Does online dating actually work?

Honestly? I don't know if it will work for you. That's a crap answer, but it's the only answer I have. Sorry.

Like I said, I know other people who are success stories, and other people who gave up (or have been on for years with no success). Online dating's usefulness is dependent upon a lot of factors—your location, your age, your personality type, what you're looking for, and so on. It's easier in densely populated areas than in rural areas, for example.

I said this earlier, but choosing the right site can go a long way. If you're a bit older and looking for people your age, you aren't going to have luck on younghawtthangs.com. Check out the demographics of different sites to see which one is ideal for you.

I can't tell you whether online dating will work for you—but I can say, with certainty, that you won't know until you give it a shot. Just relax and enjoy it—you may not meet your future spouse, but you'll almost definitely meet cool people and have fun.

Title image remixed from matsevich_maxim (Shutterstock), Knumina Studios (Shutterstock), and Ovchinnkov Vladimir (Shutterstock).

The Army Is a Great Place to Be White

$
0
0

The Army Is a Great Place to Be White

The enlisted ranks of the U.S. armed forces are pretty diverse. The officer ranks of the U.S. Army are not. For instance, there is one black colonel—one—running an armor, infantry, or artillery brigade in the world's premier fighting force this year.* Is this a problem? Hell yes, it is.

Certainly, the Army sees it as a problem today:

WASHINGTON — Command of the Army's main combat units — its pipeline to top leadership — is virtually devoid of black officers, according to interviews, documents and data obtained by USA TODAY.

The lack of black officers... threatens the Army's effectiveness, disconnects it from American society and deprives black officers of the principal route to top Army posts, according to officers and military sociologists. Fewer than 10% of the active-duty Army's officers are black compared with 18% of its enlisted men, according to the Army.

The problem is particularly acute in the combat specialties—infantry, armor, artillery—from which the service's leadership is typically drawn. There are 25 combat brigades in the Army, by the USA Today's count, and one has a black commander.* Those brigades are made up of 78 combat battalions, and "just one of those 78 battalions is scheduled to be led by a black officer in 2015," the paper claims.

Several sources told the paper that "African Americans have historically used the armed forces as a means of social mobility," but "parents, pastors and coaches of young black men and women considering the Army often don't encourage them to join the combat specialties."

But there are other factors at play, too. Black are underrepresented in military commissioning programs—West Point, college ROTC, Officer Candidate School—which is doubly unfortunate, since those programs offer low-cost educational benefits and guaranteed jobs. And then there are more troubling causes:

The downsizing of the Army is having a disproportional effect on African-American officers. From the pool of officers screened, almost 10% of eligible black majors are being dismissed from the Army compared with 5.6% of eligible white majors, USA TODAY reported in early August.

The consequences are far-reaching. Fewer minority officers means less diversity in high-level military planning—not just for wars, but for force structure and welfare of the troops. It could also convey a double-standard to the better-integrated enlisted echelons, suggesting to lower-ranking minority soldiers that their career prospects are limited and encouraging attrition from the ranks.

And there's a higher moral and strategic reason to recruit more minorities into the brass, says Col. Irving Smith, and African American officer who runs West Point's sociology department:

"First we are a public institution. And as a public institution we certainly have more of a responsibility to our nation than a private company to reflect it. In order to maintain their trust and confidence, the people of America need to know that the Army is not only effective but representative of them."

So far, the Army's concerns over its minority issues haven't caught significant criticism. But it's likely to rankle conservatives who previously bristled at giving gays full equality in the ranks or opening combat and shipboard roles to women.

"Social experimentation accelerates the demoralization of the military and promises to change the culture in disturbing ways," one of those conservatives' champions, Elaine Donnelly of the astroturfed "Center for Military Readiness," explained back during the Don't Ask Don't Tell debates in 1995. Donnelly later went on to argue that women should be kept out of the submarine service because the boats' recycled breathing supply could be dangerous to pregnant sailors' embryos.

The Navy decided otherwise, lifting the ban on women aboard submarines in 2010. No sick embryos or demoralizing incidents have been reported.

Update: The USA Today originally claimed there were currently no African American brigade commanders. But two of our readers, both soldiers, have correctly pointed out that the paper missed Col. Robert P. Ashe, the CO of the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team.

Army officials in writing and in interviews with the USA Today confirm their concerns about minority underrepresentation in the top combat ranks, but the methodology that the paper used to tally its own numbers is unclear.

Zen Koans Explained: "Just Go to Sleep"

$
0
0

Zen Koans Explained: "Just Go to Sleep"

Two men walking towards one another meet in a narrow hallway, wide enough for only one to pass. "Ladies first," says one man, slyly. A riddle: What is the other man's reply? A hint: Women have not been invented.

The koan: "Just Go to Sleep"

Gasan was sitting at the bedside of Tekisui three days before his teacher's passing. Tekisui had already chosen him as his successor.

A temple recently had burned and Gasan was busy rebuilding the structure. Tekisui asked him: "What are you going to do when you get the temple rebuilt?"

"When your sickness is over we want you to speak there," said Gasan.

"Suppose I do not live until then?"

"Then we will get someone else," replied Gasan.

"Suppose you cannot find anyone?" continued Tekisui.

Gasan answered loudly: "Don't ask such foolish questions. Just go to sleep."

The enlightenment: Gasan has had it with this guy.

This has been "Zen Koans Explained." The chopperless helicopter.

[Photo: Shutterstock]

Physician Who Performed Joan Rivers' Endoscopy Steps Down

$
0
0

Physician Who Performed Joan Rivers' Endoscopy Steps Down

ABC News reports the Yorkville gastroenterologist who performed Joan Rivers' endoscopy, during which the comedian went into cardiac arrest, has stepped down.

Dr. Lawrence Cohen was asked to step down from his position by the board of Yorkville Endoscopy, where he served as medical director. Though he is not being blamed for Rivers' death, he reportedly allowed an ear, nose, and throat specialist who was unaffiliated with the clinic to examine Rivers. The unauthorized specialist was also present at the time of the endoscopy.

According to ABC News, Dr. Cohen and the specialist have not been accused of wrongdoing, but the State Health Department is investigating.

[image via Getty]

The "Autocratic Crackdown" Threatening Hungary's Freedom of Press

$
0
0

The "Autocratic Crackdown" Threatening Hungary's Freedom of Press

Hungary's tightening vice on its press amounts to "an autocratic crackdown," Philip N. Howard, a professor at the Central European University and at the University of Washington, writes in the New York Times—taking specific aim at Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's control of the country's Media Authority, which monitors media competition and issues broadcast licenses:

Media organizations must surrender data about their employees and contracts, as well as editorial and advertising content, at a level of granular detail that no media outlet in any other part of Europe has to provide to their governments. And the Media Authority has been given unusual enforcement powers: This single agency of doubtful independence has at its disposal a full suite of fines, suspensions, license revocations and business closures.

Guess who appoints the people who manage the Media Authority?

Orban's reign, Howard writes, has essentially snuffed out any government dissent from the country's legacy media. Digital press freedom isn't faring well, either: Earlier this year, Gergo Saling, the editor-in-chief of Origo.hu, a popular Hungarian news site, was ousted after publishing stories critical of the government.

And as feared, the Hungarian parliament has adopted a progressive tax on media company's advertising revenue in June, requiring some to pay up to 40 percent. "In effect," Howard writes, "this is a partial nationalization of the industry."

The European Union's recent decision to provide a struggling Hungary with nearly 22 billion euros in assistance, Howard writes, is tantamount to "reinforcing and rewarding Mr. Orban's autocratic tendencies" toward its press. "Europe should not be financing a government that is undermining one of the cornerstones of democracy," he writes.

[Image of Hungarian press protest from 2010 via AP]

GOP Congressman Says He's Not Sexist, Because Women Dig Lingerie

$
0
0

GOP Congressman Says He's Not Sexist, Because Women Dig Lingerie

Steve Southerland, a tea partier in a tough battle for his Florida congressional seat with the daughter of a Democratic ex-senator, caught criticism last week for hosting a closed-doors men-only fundraiser. But he told reporters today that he's no misogynist, because he knows how ladies do love negligees.

Southerland, pictured above holding a possum, got his proverbial man-parts stuck in a bind two Tuesdays ago, when word leaked that he'd organized an "Irish Whiskey & Cigar Themed 5 Course Chef Event" open only to moneyed conservative penis-possessors, where they could discuss how to defeat Democratic challenger Gwen Graham and "prevent the gavel returning to Nancy Pelosi."

"Tell the Misses [sic] not to wait up," he told the "small group of concerned men," adding: "Good men sitting around discussing & solving political & social problems over fine food & drink date [sic] back to the 12th Century with King Arthur's Round Table":

GOP Congressman Says He's Not Sexist, Because Women Dig Lingerie

(Legends of Arthur's apocryphal existence actually date to the 5th century, but hey, men were pretty decisive deciders of everything in the 1100s, too.)

Graham's campaign, eager to make gender politics an issue in the district, has hammered Southerland over the fundraiser ever since. And this morning, he did the worst thing imaginable: He responded.

Via the Tampa Bay Times:

Asked to respond to the Democrats' criticism that he's anti-women, Southerland laughed and said: "I live with five women. That's all I'm saying. I live with five women. Listen: Has Gwen Graham ever been to a lingerie shower? Ask her. And how many men were there?"

By this afternoon, he was apologizing for the lingerie remark, kinda sorta. "I regret that my comments are being misused for political gain," Southerland told The Hill. "I was trying to make the point that some organizations host men-only events and some host women-only events.

It's unclear why, in searching his mind for an example of a women-only event comparable to his men-only gathering, Southerland spurned the arguably more common baby showers, bridal showers, and just, you know, meetings for coffee or whatever, in order to reference a group of women congregating to purchase sexy undergarments.

Does it make him sexist? Not at all. But it does raise questions about what Southerland's secretive club of hommes did with their Apalachicola oysters, as well as whether his wife and daughters really have that many lingerie parties, or just tell him that so they can get some precious time away from him.

[Photo credit: AP Images]

Exasperating Kid Is Exasperatingly Cute on Ellen

$
0
0

Ellen continued its week of showcasing cute kids from the Internet who are known for saying a word yesterday with the adorable, bow-tied "exasperating" kid. (He's still not terribly on board with the idea of having a new brother or sister, if you're wondering.)

To recap: boy babies cry louder than girl babies, the word exasperating means "what are you thinking, this is not fair," and it originates from exasperating kid's adorable little head.

Good luck to all of his siblings!

[via TheEllenShow]


Apple Reportedly Paid Over $100 Million to Infect Your Phone With U2

$
0
0

Apple Reportedly Paid Over $100 Million to Infect Your Phone With U2

According to Billboard, Apple is reportedly pouring at least $100 million into a campaign surrounding U2's new album, which you may be aware of after it was put onto your phone without your consent. A large sum of that money went directly to U2, while the public got a new U2 album for free. Let's tally up the winners and losers of this transaction.

Apple

Spent: Over $100 million. (As The Verge reminds us, Apple has revenues in the hundreds of billions.)

Received: A new album by U2, advertising in direct (television commercials) and indirect formats (breathless liveblogging by the tech media).

U2

Spent: An undisclosed sum, likely somewhere in the five or six figures, in order to produce an album.

Received: Many millions of dollars from Apple.

Apple customers

Spent: Nothing.

Received: A new album by U2.

I think we got fucked on this, you guys.

Who Wants to Buy The Weather Channel?

$
0
0

Who Wants to Buy The Weather Channel?

Bloomberg reports that the companies that own The Weather Channel—including Bain Capital, Blackstone, and NBC Universal—appear to be in the beginning stages of talks to sell the Atlanta-based weather behemoth. The question is: who would buy it? Let's speculate!

NBC Universal bought The Weather Channel back in 2008, at which time the network promptly switched over to an infotainment focus, shifting away from the pure weather upon which the company built its legacy for nearly three decades up to that point. The network even showed full-length movies at one point, which stopped after Jim Cantore ripped his employer on Twitter for showing a movie instead of covering a tornado outbreak in the central United States:

I want to apollogize to all of you. I was SEVERELY mislead. Was told we were bagging the "movie" to do what this network was created for.

That was in April of 2010. The network still hasn't gone back to doing what the network was created for.

If the Bloomberg report is accurate and The Weather Channel's parent companies are indeed looking to sell, who should buy it and what would happen to the channel and its programming?

Discovery Networks

If Discovery Networks somehow manages to cough up the "at least $3.5 billion" necessary to buy The Weather Channel and its associated brands, it could result in some minor changes for the widely-watched weather network.

TWC could easily be folded into the operations of The Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel. I mean, TWC is 60% reality programming to begin with. Nobody would notice a change! The only difference would be the occasional Honey Boo Boo crossover (can't you just picture a sassy Jim Cantore belting out "ain't nobody messin' with my thundersnow chiiiiiiild!") and on-air meteorologists requiring subtitles even though they're speaking English.

The Sarah Palin Channel

Who needs those weather models in this here free America, right? I can tell you with the true patriot weather across this great nation that the sun is shining through on the November, too. Severe thunderstorms? Hrrngh. Dontcha think they're of the devil or something? Ack!

Gawker

Please, Max? Pretty please?

Time Warner Cable

Now, this would be a tricky one given the potential merger between Time Warner Cable and Comcast. Since Comcast owns NBC Universal, the new Cable Merger From Hell would own The Weather Channel. They could brand it as "TWC Presents TWC, a Channel by TWC" and bring on that annoying-as-hell football coach from the commercials as its new narrator.

A potential TWC/TWC deal would also spell an uncertain future for WeatherNation, which is The Weather Channel's only competitor on the airwaves. WeatherNation appears on digital channels across the country, as well as beside TWC on DirecTV, so owning WeatherNation's competitor might give the cable company further incentive to squash the fledgling network.

Food Network

[Guy Fieri grunting for 18 hours]

Viacom

Another option would be to sell The Weather Channel to Viacom, which owns numerous channels such as Nickelodeon, MTV, and TV Land. As with Discovery, since The Weather Channel is mostly reality programming anyway, there wouldn't be much of a change here. I would kill to see Roseanne do the weather, though.

So, what do you think? Who should buy The Weather Channel? If you're, say, the President of The Weather Channel (hi Dave!) and have any inside information you'd like to share, drop me a line.

[top image via The Weather Channel]


You can follow the author on Twitter or send him an email.

The volume of gray matter in one region of your brain predicts how much tolerance you have for finan

Warrant Issued For Adrian Peterson's Arrest In Child Injury Case

$
0
0

Warrant Issued For Adrian Peterson's Arrest In Child Injury Case

Fox Houston reports that Vikings running back Adrian Peterson has been indicted in Montgomery County, Texas, for reckless or negligent injury to a child. A warrant has been issued for Peterson's arrest.

The Vikings have deactivated Peterson for Sunday's game against New England.

According to Fox Houston's Isiah Carey, the charges stem from allegations that Peterson "beat his young son."

NFL.com's Ian Rapoport adds this detail:

(A switch is a narrow, flexible branch from a tree. A child being disciplined is often sent to fetch his own switch.)

CBS Minnesota has a lot more details:

Sports Radio 610 in Houston obtained a draft of the police report which says Peterson admitted that he did, in his words, "whoop" one of his children last May while the boy was visiting him in Houston.

When the 4-year-old boy returned to Minnesota, his mother took him to a doctor. The police report said the boy told the doctor Peterson had hit him with a branch from a tree.

The doctor told investigators that the boy had a number of lacerations on his thighs, along with bruise-like marks on his lower back and buttocks and cuts on his hand.

The police report says the doctor described some of the marks as open wounds and termed it "child abuse." Another examiner agreed, calling the cuts "extensive."

CBS Minnesota includes photos of the boy's injuries, released by the Houston PD This is one, apparently showing lacerations to the boy's legs:

Warrant Issued For Adrian Peterson's Arrest In Child Injury Case

Warrant Issued For Adrian Peterson's Arrest In Child Injury Case

When investigators questioned Peterson, they say he told them he regarded it as a normal spanking and not excessive. A grand jury seated earlier this summer decided not to charge him.

Nick Wright at CBS Houston reports that Peterson told police he hit his son after the boy pushed another child off of a motorbike video game.

The beating allegedly resulted in numerous injuries to the child, including cuts and bruises to the child's back, buttocks, ankles, legs and scrotum, along with defensive wounds to the child's hands. Peterson then texted the boy's mother, saying that one wound in particular would make her "mad at me about his leg. I got kinda good wit the tail end of the switch."

Peterson also allegedly said via text message to the child's mother that he "felt bad after the fact when I notice the switch was wrapping around hitting I (sic) thigh" and also acknowledged the injury to the child's scrotum in a text message, saying, "Got him in nuts once I noticed. But I felt so bad, n I'm all tearing that butt up when needed! I start putting them in timeout. N save the whooping for needed memories!"

In further text messages, Peterson allegedly said, "Never do I go overboard! But all my kids will know, hey daddy has the biggie heart but don't play no games when it comes to acting right."

According to police reports, the child, however, had a slightly different story, telling authorities that "Daddy Peterson hit me on my face." The child also expressed worry that Peterson would punch him in the face if the child reported the incident to authorities. He also said that he had been hit by a belt and that "there are a lot of belts in Daddy's closet." He added that Peterson put leaves in his mouth when he was being hit with the switch while his pants were down. The child told his mother that Peterson "likes belts and switches" and "has a whooping room."

Wright tells us the boy gave a full statement to police, and that there is there is a 40-plus-minute audio recording of Peterson talking to police and telling them about the "whooping." There are more than a dozen photos of the child's injuries, as well as a photo of Peterson removing a switch from a tree that is reportedly similar in size and shape to the one allegedly used to inflict the beating.

Here's a statement from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, via Albert Breer:

"An unknown police department called the City of Houston police department with a complaint of child endangerment, and Houston referred it to the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office where the alleged case occurred. Montgomery County investigated a complaint of "injury to a child" and referred the case to the district attorney. The DA then handed the case to the Grand Jury."

The Vikings released this statement:

"The Vikings are in the process of gathering information regarding the legal situation involving Adrian Peterson. At this time, we will defer further questions to Adrian's attorney Rusty Hardin."

Peterson's attorney Rusty Hardin, who is reportedly out of the country, emailed this statement:

"Adrian Peterson has been informed that he was indicted by a grand jury in Montgomery County, Texas for Injury to a Child. The charged conduct involves using a switch to spank his son. This indictment follows Adrian's full cooperation with authorities who have been looking into this matter. Adrian is a loving father who used his judgment as a parent to discipline his son. He used the same kind of discipline with his child that he experienced as a child growing up in east Texas. Adrian has never hidden from what happened. He has cooperated fully with authorities and voluntarily testified before the grand jury for several hours. Adrian will address the charges with the same respect and responsiveness he has brought to this inquiry from its beginning. It is important to remember that Adrian never intended to harm his son and deeply regrets the unintentional injury."

Jay Glazer adds that Peterson has been cooperating with law enforcement, and will now have to turn himself in to authorities. Ian Rapoport notes that Peterson testified before a grand jury weeks ago.

Peterson missed yesterday's team practice for what coach Mike Zimmer called a "veteran's day." He was back with the Vikings today.

John Cusack's Brian Wilson Biopic and More: TIFF Dispatch Two

$
0
0

John Cusack's Brian Wilson Biopic and More: TIFF Dispatch Two

Film writers Fariha Roísín and Sara Black McCulloch are covering the Toronto International Film Festival this year as a series of conversations about the festival and its programming. This, the second dispatch includes the Brian Wilson biopic Love & Mercy, Hungry Hearts, and No Soy Lorena.

Fariha: We're almost ending our time here at TIFF—and so we bring you our second dispatch from the festival! Today we're focusing on family and identity and how often those two things interconnect and are affected heavily by the other. The films we'll be talking about are Love & Mercy, a Brian Wilson (of the The Beach Boys) biopic, directed by Bill Pohlad and starring Paul Dano and John Cusack as young and old Wilson, respectively. Then we've got Hungry Hearts, directed by Saverio Costanzo and starring one of my favorite actors—Adam Driver—and Alba Rohrwacher, as a couple that fall in love in New York City, to say the least. It's based on the novel by Marco Franzoso entitled, "The Indigo Child." Lastly, we have a beautiful debut from Chilean director—Isidora Marras, in a superb first feature titled No Soy Lorena, which stars fellow Chilean actress, Loreta Aravena as Olivia—a girl who is a victim of identity theft.

Sara: Love & Mercy played up familial roles—and not just within a household, but also within a professional setting (say, a band and recording studio). This one in particular dealt with the dual role of "father" and "showbiz dad"—in this case, Murry Wilson—and how those roles affected his son, Brian Wilson. The tensions between them really escalated while Wilson was making Pet Sounds, "Good Vibrations," and Smile. Murry, once the manager of The Beach Boys, was upset that Brian fired him, and that always surfaces in their interactions with each other. For example, while Brian is fiddling with the arrangement for "God Only Knows," he asks Murry what he thinks about the song. His father dismisses it immediately, as he seems especially upset that Brian is taking over creative control of the band's sound. So, we have a combination of familial tension and a struggle for creative control. It's like watching Svengali try to regain his hold over Trilby.

Fariha: I'd known a little about Brian Wilson's life prior to watching the film. I knew that he had suffered from mental breakdowns, "auditory hallucinations," and that he was manic depressive throughout his youth—particularly during the creation of the seminal album that is Pet Sounds. I just never knew to what extent he was ill. I was a huge Beach Boys fan growing up, so the nostalgia of watching Brian Wilson (who is played here by Paul Dano) tinged with the sad reality of his life, was confronting. The story that unfolded—the allegations of his abuse from his father, then from his pseudo father-like manager (played by the always scarily-on-point, Paul Giamatti) reminded me of the turmoils of celebrity youth. Not to give anyone an exemption, because being famous comes with a great amount of privilege, but it is troubling to see how many famous people battle with their demons publically. In such a fierce environment, as so many people demand so much of you, your life somehow becomes a sublimation for those people's creative needs. I don't know if this film is an honest portrayal of the rest of the Beach Boys, but they definitely seemed like nonchalant jerks. You know, those idiosyncratic "long hair, don't care" Californian dudes. Maybe their lack of sympathy was used as a dramatic arc, but I did definitely sympathize with Brian in the beginning. I can't imagine the frustrations of being this strange specimen in a society that wants show tunes, and ballads out of you. It's interesting that the reaction to him and his music was so vastly different compared to The Beatles. Those four were always accepted in whatever creative endeavor they wanted to experiment in—but perhaps that's more emblematic of the tersely conservative US vs. eccentric friendly UK?

Sara: It harks back to what we were talking about with Clouds of Sils Maria—the roles that are forced upon/expected of successful entertainers—especially younger performers. But it was worse at an earlier time, when musicians had to be clean cut and sing about puppy love and cute girls. And you see Brian break down—this pivotal breaking point—where he screams "Surfers don't even listen to our music! We don't even surf!" I mean there's a framework in place—or, as his cousin Mike Love keeps saying, "a formula"— that they're supposed to stick to in order to be "number one." Diverging from it was a huge, costly risk. Brian is the outlier because he wants to do something different—create new sounds. He's also taking on this leadership role and there's push back because he's not being a man and leader the way his father thinks he should be. It's a constant power struggle, and eventually his father sells the rights to the Beach Boys songs, which is a final stab at Brian (because he wrote most of the songs).

Fariha: Seeing Brian as an outlier was really interesting, because you know that is what actually happened. It's ironic that creatives are not only often misunderstood (which is a trope) but also struggle to fully communicate their vision, as so much of the time it's lodged underneath so much self denial, and fear, as it seemed to be in Brian's case. That scene where his dad's like "LOL, sold the rights to your music!" And Brian (Dano) is holding back tears, calming himself down between the records that surrounding him, going into a happy place so he keeps his cool—that was just horrible. Can you imagine the lawsuits if that happened today? I can't believe that Pet Sounds, being the critically and culturally relevant album that it still is today, didn't quite translate immediately to someone like Murry Wilson, or Mike Love. It's absurd to me that so much of Brian's early music career was consumed by so much inadequacy that was obviously transplanted to him via the (supposed) horrible people in his life. Which sadly, were his family. I get solace out of the fact that those songs, and albums, have had such a huge cultural legacy—and I hope Brian does, too.

Sara: There is a predominant formula to the rock bio/misunderstood and tortured genius film and a lot of times, we get nothing new. I think Love & Mercy was trying to bring in some new ideas—like what it takes to fight for artistic vision when no one can understand what it is you're trying to do. But, there was still something that was missing for me: this is supposed to be a story about Brian's rich, inner world, and nothing—not visually, or even aurally!—was done to render that life on screen. Brian Wilson has said that he heard voices telling him they were going to hurt him—that was all mainly left out too. What we get instead is this layering of sounds—how the echoes and sound patterns come together to form, what we know as these catchy and beautiful songs.

The point they keep making too is how Brian's songs sound happy, but the lyrics themselves are so disturbing. There is a constant reference to how Brian's lyrics—and how his direction—are going to ruin the legacy of the band. There's a cost to pushing imagination—pushing it to produce so much. Although we get this muffled, overload of this layering of sounds and instruments in Brian's head—that's as far as it goes. It's a shame, because Brian was reaching for something so intangible. I get that that's very difficult to translate onto screen, but recall that this is a story that fans know so well and there's even footage of the making of Pet Sounds online. It just didn't feel finished and it was definitely a half hour too long.

Fariha: All in all, the narrative was compelling. Brian's life has been one complicated and eviscerated by his illness—and people's inability to comprehend him within that context. It's obviously a story close to people's hearts, because of his reach and influence as an entertainer, but ultimately, as you said, the movie itself hinged on stereotypes of other rock musicians and their bios, and failed to provide anything new. At a certain part, I didn't care about Brian's pain anymore. I wasn't invested in the end. I also thought Elizabeth Bank's storyline as Melinda Ledbetter was way too drawn out.

Sara: Another film we saw that dealt with family and the roles of family members was Saverio Costanzo's Hungry Hearts. The story follows the relationship of Jude and Mina, from their courtship in a fart-filled restaurant bathroom to the birth of their child. What was interesting and ultimately discomforting about this film was how our perception of mothers was challenged. We're told that women are nurturers because biology, and that they're supposed to care for their children. Mina, convinced that she is bearing an Indigo Child, decides to purify him. The audience's perceptions are challenged as doctors tell Jude the child is starving and not growing. We're forced to wonder whether Mina is a caring and devoted mother or ultimately a self-destructive force.

Fariha: Hungry Hearts was so hard to watch. I kept thinking back to the perfect opening—the warmth, the charm, the humor of being trapped in a miasmic public bathroom with your future lover, who you currently don't know, who is having very bad diahorrea in the only cubicle in the downstairs of a Chinese restaurant. Oh yeah, and you're literally trapped—the door won't open to let you out. It was beautifully resonant and hopeful—a great balance for a romance, which is what I wanted it to be. The back and forth between Driver and Rohrwacher was so languidly dreamy. I was expecting the film to be as full as the first few shots, rich and colorful, but as we moved into the thick of it, everything became dense with fear and pain. The colors started fading, and it reminded me a lot like Michel Gondry's latest film L'Écume Du Jours (Mood Indigo) in that as both female leads—Mina and Chloe (Audrey Tatou) get sicker, the color palette of both film becomes more insipid, and subdued, fading somewhat like Jude's love for Mina.

I had a lot of frustrations with the film primarily because I wasn't sure what was going on. Nothing is ever said; only intimated. Does Mina have postpartum depression? You're never quite sure. Even if she did—it felt strange that a man was trying to characterize this, and maybe that's why it never felt completely realized as a film for me. Constanzo may have purposely wanted this level of confusion because at times he used a fisheye lens to emphasize Mina's weight loss—and to question her insanity and authority. Besides, so much of her screen time towards the end is consumed by ominous horror themed music to increase the level of claustrophobia that you feel whilst watching the film. I found myself hating her, but how much of that reaction is designed for you? I'd say a lot of it. I walked out of a cinema where most people were discussing how Mina was ultimately a crazy bitch. If that's the lasting legacy of the film, then it's incredibly dismissive of the process of motherhood.

Sara: It reminded me of Repulsion a lot—that terrifying, seemingly delicate woman. We observe her on the surface, and what is so threatening, is that we don't know very much about what is going on inside her head—there are just these violent actions. There's a focus—obsession—on what is put into the body and what comes out of it. The body, by design, is supposed to purify itself, and yet Mina wants to control as many variables as possible—germs, diet, atmosphere, cellphone radiation. The thing is, we're so consumed with what she's doing to the baby and to her body and yet we hardly know what's driving her. She mentions early on in the film that her mother died when she was young and that she hasn't seen her father in ages. She only has Jude and the baby. We hear little else about her past, her upbringing, and her mental health. What's also interesting is that the baby has no name, it's just a baby or "the baby," which reinforces its connection and dependence on the mother.

There's also this huge barrier in communication between Mina and Jude. The child is conceived when Mina finds out she's being transferred. She has sex with Jude and pleads with him not to come inside her, but before she's finished asking, he does. It's all on Mina and Jude doesn't discuss child rearing—he just says that he trusts her judgment. But he trusts her because she's the mother—he expects her to fulfill this role. Mina has to measure up to it, despite the fact that she never really had a maternal figure in her life.

So this film sets up expectations for us and we somehow have to trust Costanzo's judgment, although his primary concern seems to be the state of the child. Mina is wasting away and, although measures are taken to get the child out of her custody, nothing is done to help her, her condition, or even to better understand her. Essentially, all the women in this film are filtered into two categories: good or bad caregivers.

Fariha: That's a really good point. It's such a judgey film, in a lot of ways. Everybody has ideas about what motherhood stands for, what it is—what does it mean, what does it look like? We think we know what "a good mother" is, but that's comparable to how, societally, we also know what a "good woman" is. It's toxic to have these standards. It's emblematic that women who are bad at caregiving are ultimately presented as Medusa like old hags that (appropriately to the movie) deserve to die. I always think of that one scene in True Detective, where McConaughey really snaps. He's talking to a woman who kills three or four of her babies, and after he gets her to sign his confession, he tells her to go kill herself. The vitriol from Rust is told in a way that you sympathize with him, never with her. You're not even given a chance too, that's the thing. That's why film and TV are so vital to ideas of representation—most of the time it's about what you're not talking about that's so integral to change. Motherhood is such a tentative role, and it deserves an astute portrayal. I grew up with a mother kind of like Mina, and in fact I agreed with a lot of things that Mina was choosing for the baby, but at a certain point the films doesn't want you to see her side anymore, so she becomes a caricature, motivated only by selfishness. That's the only digestible way to see her. We are never given the opportunity to see what really motivates Mina, as you said. I'm sure there was a lot more going on in there, and it's a shame we never get to the bottom of it.

During his press conference, Costanzo seemed aware of the complexities of the story itself, but the final product sided in the favor of Jude—the rational father-figure, the man who is governed by science and a reasoned desire for the wellbeing of his child.

Ultimately, it's dark for everyone. I couldn't quite comprehend the end, but I knew it was coming. I'm still battling with what it represents. Although there's rationality to Jude's care for his baby, there's no rationality to the film's denouement. In that way, the film is manipulative, it makes you believe that's the only way it could end.

Although, all in all, it's a gorgeous film—and it's easy to get lost in the beauty of it. The cinematography of New York—the Coney Island wharf, Jude's mother's house snowed in around upstate New York—the whiteness of the milieu a stark contrast to Mina's bony uncovered legs as she walks past the ice and slush. The performances were amazing. Driver and Rohrwacher have so much chemistry, that it's no wonder they both won the Volpi Cup at the Venice Film Festival for Best Actress and Actor. There was an inseparability between them, and I believed every second of it.

Sara: Finally, we have No Soy Lorena, which tackles the issue of identity a little differently than the previous two films. Here we have familial ties—Olivia as a daughter tending to her mother, who is ill. And then we have Olivia, the actress, who is currently preparing for a role. Finally, Olivia, who is mistaken for a Lorena Ruiz. "I am not Lorena," is repeated by Olivia over and over again throughout the film. But soon, telling strangers who she is and isn't is the least of her worries.

Director Isidora Marras is bringing up issues of online identity, but also the fluidity of identity in real life: If Olivia dons a wig, is she still Olivia? If she is Lorena on paper or to a creditor, is she still Olivia? Olivia herself seems to be floating around, just barely getting by. So this is much less about how people posture online. It's also about how easily our online identities can be tied to larger, more powerful institutions and the consequences of these connections. Do you think this is an old story? Have we seen this story before on shows like Dateline? Or do you think Marras is updating this story?

Fariha: Not necessarily. I think the film itself was very well done. I was really impressed by Marras because I think she did a phenomenal job with the pacing of the whole film. It felt like a thriller and I think that's a hard thing to establish without being overwrought with clichés. So in that instance I don't think we've seen this story enough. Even though it's a narrative that we're familiar with, it is in a completely different backdrop, told in a very different way. South American Cinema doesn't have a lot of female directors, and this is a modern story told in the context of Latin America, and I welcome that change.

I also really enjoyed the fact that Olivia's identity fraud was completely juxtaposed against her mother who is suffering from impaired memory loss, a sudden strain of alzheimer's disease. I think it was a really great transition into a larger conversation about who we are without our memory; are we still people, are we still alive? What our identities, really? We've been watching a lot of films that tackle ego, whether in a subversive way or not. I mean it's arguable that the running theme of all the films we've watched has been about the EGO and how different people tackle this. Her mother was such a parallel question that lingered as we watched Olivia battle with being brutalized by a system that was enabled to destroy her (I particularly liked when she said to the police officer who had barred down her door to start gathering her things: "What are you staring at? Where are you when we actually need you?" and how the officer just gawks at her in a response, obviously surprised by her abrasiveness) and the bureaucracy of the system at large. At any given moment there's an institutional hurdle—which also seemed like a larger conversation about communication, and how impersonally we communicate now. Marras brought in a political dialogue in the lightest and most effective way. It was never overwhelming, or unnecessary, it was said with just the right amount of sass.

I am excited to see Marras' next film. I have great faith in her as a filmmaker.

Sara: This was the point I was trying to make with Love & Mercy: if this is a story or plotline the audience is familiar with—right down to every bureaucratic twist and turn—then give your audience a reason to feel invested in the story. And Marras does. She also sets this thriller/whodunnit against the backdrop of the student protests in Chile. Whenever they discuss the protests, the issue of debt—lowering the unpayable student debt—someone at the bank always makes fun of them. Debt has also seeped into Olivia's life and into her identity—she's counting down the payments until she's free and out of the red. And the color red is so much more prominent when Olivia is trying to find Lorena—the lighting in a club, for instance, creates a red glare that permeates the scene—the closer she is to finding out more about Lorena, the deeper she gets in the red. The real Lorena even stains Olivia's bank statement with her blood.

These last few films have confronted the issue of identity in different ways, but a common thread is that people who seem to feel lost are suddenly assigned an identity by some external source: a parent, partner, or institution. At times, it can be freeing and at others it can be suffocating. We're nearing the end of our TIFF coverage, so stay tuned for our last dispatch.

Sara Black McCulloch is a Toronto-based writer and researcher. Her work has appeared in Bitch, Little Brother Magazine, and The National Post. Follow her on Twitter@sblackmcculloch.

Fariha Roísín is a writer. Follow her on twitter @fariharoisin.

Image via AP

Deadspin Deadspin OBLITERATES Current Internet Headline Meme | Gizmodo How to Upgrade to an iPhone 6

New Exemptions Will Let Some Old U.S. Government Secrets St​ay Secret

$
0
0

New Exemptions Will Let Some Old U.S. Government Secrets St​ay Secret

It wasn't clear when Obama signed Executive Order 13526 early in his presidency what "extraordinary cases" government agencies could propose to exempt documents from automatic declassification after 50 years. Well, turns out, dozens of agencies qualified, mostly the obvious ones, but also the U.S. Mint.

Last week, the Information Security Oversight Office updated their list of government agencies with classified material that is eligible for exceptions—all of which had to pass through something called the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) to fully vet whether they merited staying secret for another 25-year interval. ISCAP was persuaded that pretty much every intelligence agency, as well as the U.S. Department of Energy, FEMA, the U.S. Mint, NASA, and the FBI all have old material whose declassification "would clearly and demonstrably cause damage to national security."

As Steven Aftergood, an electrical engineer by training who directs the Federation of American Scientist's Project on Government Secrecy, put it, "It appeared that the extraordinary had become quite ordinary."

Aftergood also pressed the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, John P. Fitzpatrick, into justifying some of the more baffling cases:

Why does the U.S. Mint need an exemption from declassification for 75 year old information? Is it some sort of anti-counterfeiting issue? No, he said, that's not it.

The U.S. Mint declassification exemption, "which is perhaps the most [narrowly] targeted of all ISCAP-approved exemptions," applies solely to "security specifications from the U.S. Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, which was built in the late 1930s," Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

"Think 'Goldfinger'," he said.

Wow.

In all seriousness, it does sound like John Fitzpatrick just admitted that Fort Knox has measures to protect itself from nuclear devices and razor-sharp bowler caps: a very irresponsible thing to just decide to declassify in the middle of an interview.

For shame, Information Security Oversight Office Director John Fitzpatrick. For shame.

[photo via Blake Handley, with minor changes; h/t Steven Aftergood]

To contact the author, email matthew.phelan@gawker.com, pgp public key.


Forward or Delete: This Week's Fake Viral Photos

$
0
0

Forward or Delete: This Week's Fake Viral Photos

Occasionally, against all odds, you'll see an interesting or even enjoyable picture on the Internet. But is it worth sharing, or just another Photoshop job that belongs in the digital trash heap? Check in here and find out if that viral photo deserves an enthusiastic "forward" or a pitiless "delete."

Image via Twitter


FORWARD

Forward or Delete: This Week's Fake Viral Photos

When photos of this 18-inch "nightmare shrimp" caught in Florida began circulating online late last week, some doubted their authenticity, speculating the creature's apparent size was just the result of clever camera angles. Unfortunately for your chances of ever sleeping again, the Australian Museum's Dr. Shane Ahyong confirms this Lovecraftian terror is absolutely real.

"The animal certainly is a mantis shrimp," the decapod expert told Gawker, specifically identifying it as "Lysiosquilla scabricauda, a common species in the tropical western Atlantic, including Florida." According to Ahyong, 18 inches could be a realistic estimate of the dream-stealing arthropod, if measured from "the tip of the tail to the end of the outstretched claws." Dr. Darryl L. Felder of the University of Louisiana-Lafayette came to a similar conclusion, but noted that length would make it—in technical terms—"a really big one."

Image via FFWC/Facebook


DELETE

Fueled by the Internet's mysterious need to constantly praise, ridicule, crave and criticize pumpkin-fucking-spice, pictures of a pumpkin-flavored condom raced through Twitter last weekend, leading many to believe that their dreams of autumnally-infused oral had finally come true. On Monday, BuzzFeed reached out to Durex to verify the photo, receiving a denial that was completely groan-inducing (in a bad way).

"Durex has heard that people are saying we launched a 'Pumpkin Spice' condom," the jimmy hat giant told BuzzFeed. "We can't claim this one, but we do love it when people spice it up in the bedroom." Ugh.


DELETE

Forward or Delete: This Week's Fake Viral Photos

As The Vane's Dennis Mersereau explained in detail earlier this week, the above graphic of a "record-shattering snowfall" supposedly coming this winter is complete malarkey:

[T]here is no scientific skill in predicting record-breaking snowfall across any region — let alone the entire country — this far in advance. Heck, we often have trouble pinning-down snowfall accumulations while the storm is happening.

In reality, the picture comes from a bogus article by faux-satirists and Antiviral regulars Empire News. As this week's most boringly plausible fake news story, it was also one of the most widely spread, and by Friday the article had been shared over a million times.

Image via Twitter


FORWARD

Forward or Delete: This Week's Fake Viral Photos

Good news, burger-loving goths: this clove-smoking cheeseburger is absolutely real. Bad news, burger-loving goths: unless, you live in the Far East, you won't be seeing one any time soon. Dyed with the squid ink and bamboo charcoal, the "KURO Pearl" is exclusively available at Japanese Burger King locations through early November.

Burger King Japan previously released a similarly black, shamefully cheese-less iteration of the KURO burger back in 2012 to celebrate their fifth anniversary in the country. According to Japanese website Gigazine, that sandwich's "black appearance makes a big impact, but the taste was surprisingly traditional."

Image via Burger King


JESUS CHRIST, PEOPLE, IT'S A JOKE

A pretty obvious parody of corporate America's glurgy, hand-on-heart 9/11 messages, right? Apparently not to some people, who believed a master hacker had taken over Arby's Twitter account in order to write "Arby's hates America. This is a real tweet."

Forward or Delete: This Week's Fake Viral Photos

Forward or Delete: This Week's Fake Viral Photos

A few irony-immune Internet users went even further, giving the clearly fake thing the full Rust Cohle treatment.

Forward or Delete: This Week's Fake Viral Photos

Like the Neil deGrasse Tyson subway photo uproar earlier this year, the entire situation was—as @boring_as_heck noted in his initial tweet—completely unreal.

Images via Twitter


Antiviral is a new blog devoted to debunking online hoaxes. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Your Official Guide to Binge Watching The Good Wife

$
0
0

As of today, you have two weekends to catch up on The Good Wife before the hit import from the world of Mom Shows returns. Whether you're here because of the nonstop critical praise, the endless lavishing of awards, or to shut up a friend or loved one by finally giving it a try, you still have a decent shot at getting caught up in time to join the conversation next Sunday (9/21).

TGW rarely has what you'd call filler episodes, so we can't really angle here toward eliminating the unnecessary; what you have are choices about focusing on what's going to be of immediate importance when the show returns for Season 6.

Seasons 1-4 are on Hulu Plus (Season 5 available 9/21), and—thanks to a deal earlier this summer—nothing's on Netflix, but everything (including Season 5) is on Amazon Prime.

SEASON ONE

Five Essential Episodes:

  • "Pilot" (101) Like that of every show that exists, the pilot of The Good Wife establishes the premise, characters, conflicts, and world of a show. You'd do well to watch the pilot of any show that interests you. That's how it works.
  • "Stripped" (102) and "Home" (103) explore Florrick family dynamics and introduce the "shortest giant/tallest dwarf" politics of the show, a natural consequence of the champagne liberal milieu, but one that can come as a sharp surprise when something tremendously conservative or old-peopley happens out the blue. You also get to see what Alicia is like around bitches, which is a huge part of the show, which is in large part just a deluge of bitches.
  • "Doubt" (118), "Unplugged" (121) and "Running" (123) take us to the end of Season 1, each concerning a different long-running dynamic within the firm.

Five Worthwhile Ones:

  • "Fixed" (104), "Lifeguard" (110), "Hi" (114), "Fleas" (116) and "Hybristophilia" (122) introduce equally important running characters, institutions and concepts. Also, you may be surprised by how dynamic the relationship with Peter actually is, from the very start, and this is also a good scattering of episodes to get the gist of how the Florricks' marriage actually works. (To the extent that you will ever understand how it works.)

SEASON TWO

Five Essential Episodes:

  • "Taking Control" (201) resolves the cliffhanger, and introduces new possible enemies at the firm and in Chicago's larger political scene: By "Breaking Fast" (203) Alicia and the firm are up against the villainous State's Attorney Glen Childs (Peter's opponent), and so on.
  • In "VIP Treatment" (205) we meet DA Wendy Scott-Carr, a ruiner of countless lives; this one also shows us Diane's disappointed idealism when her heroes show feet of clay: A recurring and central theme, as usually Diane represents the more pragmatic view toward which optimistic Alicia is always staggering.
  • "Ham Sandwich" (217) is the first in a long scattered line of episodes surrounding a drug-lord's violent divorce; also when you notice how much unspoken issues of race and privilege have begun dominating both Peter's life and the firm itself. In the finale, "Closing Arguments" (223), let's just say that Alicia, um, resolves the tension in multiple close relationships and areas of life.

Five Worthwhile Ones:

  • "Double Jeopardy" (202) shows us Cary Agos as an Assistant State's Attorney, and it's brutal.
  • "Poisoned Pill" (206) introduces Michael J. Fox's Louis Canning, a hugely important character and seminal episode just in general; "Net Worth" (214) introduces internet millionaire Neil Gross, possibly the show's most pivotal client.
  • "On Tap" (208) is when the telephonic misdeeds from last year's finale finally come to light.
  • "Two Courts" (211) dives deep into the institutionalized racism stuff, asking white-lady questions most white-lady shows would be too white-lady to ask. Fairly amazing how willing the show, and characters, are willing to interrogate themselves just in case.

SEASON THREE

Five Essential Episodes:

  • "Marthas & Caitlins" (305) Between suicidal witnesses and workplace paranoia, Alicia's need for the monstrous Colin Sweeney's help is nearly cause for a breakdown; Eli does some crazy shit for Peter. A good intro to the real themes and stakes of the season.
  • "Executive Order 13224" (307) Alicia vs. the Treasury Department is a fan-favorite episode, not least because of the return of Carrie Preston's Elsbeth Tascioni and some of Julianna Margulies's most hilarious deadpan of all time.
  • "Another Ham Sandwich" (314) is a major turning point both for Will Gardner and for the terrifying Wendy Scott-Carr. Possibly Amy Sedaris's best episode.
  • "Blue Ribbon Panel" (319) and "The Dream Team" (322) bookend the season's intense last act, as Alicia gets pulled back into Peter's political realm just as Martha Plimpton's evil Patti Nyholm is teaming up with Louis Canning to ruin the firm altogether.

Five Worthwhile Ones:

  • "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" (309) is one of the season's most stylish episodes, although the case could stand to be more interesting; Diane's dilemmas back home at the firm provide some intense counterpoint.
  • "What Went Wrong" (311) finds Alicia at a crossroads emotionally and Wendy Scott-Carr approaches Will with a devil's bargain; "Bitcoin for Dummies" (313) introduces a second internet billionaire, this one more youthfully and cluelessly idealistic but no less of a pain in the ass.
  • "After the Fall" (316) is the best episode involving Anna Camp's Caitlin, seeming party girl/actual striver, whose arc is one of the most surprising and politically relevant on the show.
  • "Pants on Fire" (320) requires a reevalutation of the entire Florrick marriage once the vile Mike Kristeva (Matthew Perry) throws his hat into the gubernatorial ring; this dynamic changes things for a long time to come.

Your Official Guide to Binge Watching The Good Wife

SEASON FOUR

Five Essential Episodes:

  • In "Boom De Yah Da" (411), Will and Diane face off against Clarke Hayden, who's sweetly trying to take over the firm; Alicia finds herself in the wilderness with only a weirdly sympathetic Louis Canning and his marvelous wife for company.
  • "The Seven Day Rule" (413) A whirlwind, instant classic episode all about the farcical machinations and finances at the firm. Peter's campaign storyline is also fairly decent in this one, as well.
  • In "Red Team, Blue Team" (414), the fourth-years face off against the partners, which becomes a huge deal for the rest of the season (and series).
  • "Death of a Client" (418) introduces and kills off John Noble's outstanding Matthew Ashbaugh posthumously; nevertheless he becomes a central character, despite never appearing in realtime on the show. a Top Five all-time episode.
  • "What's in the Box?" (422) is a fairly brutal, suspenseful finale that both clears the deck for the glory of Season Five, and ties things up here in a satisfying way.

Five Worthwhile Ones:

  • "I Fought the Law" (401) / "And the Law Won" (402), while enjoyable episodes, introduce the show's most negatively received, unnecessary plots and characters ever: Maura Tierney's mesmerizing Maddie Hayward, Kalinda's mysterious shitty boring stupid awful husband, and Nathan Lane's wonderful trustee Clarke Hayden (who will eventually matter, but not until year) are all important to the overall arc of the season, but also just distract from it. You can pick up the gist without caring too much about any of that stuff.
  • "Waiting for the Knock" (405) puts Alicia inside Lemond Bishop's home for almost the entire episode, resulting in some pretty stellar stuff; Eli's fight with journalism goes to some pretty crazy places over the course of the season.
  • "Here Comes the Judge" (408) Will overhears a judge being a total dick at a bar, which unravels everybody's lives in ways that never stop being super intense/hilarious. Grace Florrick as interesting as she will ever be.
  • "Je Ne Sais What?" (412) While Alicia, Diane and Will join forces to help Elsbeth Tascioni, TR Knight's Jordan and Alan Cumming's Eli Gold clash over Peter's campaign. One of the show's and definitely Peter's best scene of the series to date, in which ASA Geneva Pine explains race to the dude more patiently than you would ever believe possible:

Bonus: Worst-Ever Episode of This Whole Show

  • "A Defense of Marriage " (409). Poorly written, smarmy as hell, and manages to fumble gay marriage and organized labor in the same story. Veritable checklist of why you should never presume to tell someone else's story. Just skip it.

SEASON FIVE

The best season of the show and one of the best seasons of any show, ever, this one probably deserves its own day of bingeing. It's definitely the reason you've been hearing about the show more this last year, as the buzz increased from both old-school fans and newer converts. In a pinch, remember that multiples of 5 (episodes 5, 10, 15, 20) are the tentpoles this year, along with the premiere and the finale.

Essential Episodes:

  • In "Everything is Ending" (501) Alicia and Cary are treated like double-agents within the firm, which is exactly what they are... Until "Hitting the Fan" (505), which is aptly titled and brings the entire show down around everyone's ears. Some of the most intense dramatics in the show to date, and some of the best writing and acting too. You'd think it would be hard to top...
  • And then comes "The Decision Tree" (510), in which we get a glimpse inside the betrayed Will Gardner's mind (and at all the Alicias that populate it). A heartbreaker and one I've personally seen convert new viewers even without the backstory. Its parallel episode, "A Few Words" (514), recapitulates Alicia's own biography more clearly and explicitly than any story to date. But they both, together, sadly lead us inexorably toward...
  • "Dramatics, Your Honor"/"The Last Call" (515/ 516), which if you don't know what that means or how the story therein cemented Good Wife as one of the all-time greats, don't worry about it. Just start watching so you can get there as quickly as possible.
  • The last three episodes of the season (520-522) form a triptych of sorts, although if you're pressed for time you can leave out the middle chapter and still get the gist of where Season 6 will find us: Who is estranged from Lockhart/Gardner these days, where Alicia's head is at romantically, and how everybody is going to be moving forward after the show-rattling events that kept exploding in everybody's faces all season.

Your Official Guide to Binge Watching The Good Wife

Also Worthwhile:

  • "The Bit Bucket" and "The Deep Web"(502 and 520) introduce and wrap up the NSA storyline, which is enjoyable as background noise you know will never go anywhere.
  • "The Next Day," "The Next Week," and "The Next Month" (506-508) follow on from the events of 505, a neat bit of stage business that never gets so absorbed with its own cleverness that you can't track and grieve along with the involved players.
  • "Outside the Bubble" (504) takes us behind the Diane curtain for the first time in a while, which is always nice; she brings in Elsbeth on a case and comes to an astonishing decision regarding her sexy, gun-nut Republican boyfriend Kurt McVeigh.
  • "We, the Juries" (512) puts a couple accused of drug trafficking through its symbolic paces, as everybody tries to figure out their trust-fall situation with everybody else, while by "All Tapped Out" (518) everything has so drastically changed that it's itself just a fascinating transition story. Everything after that point is about exploring the professional and personal roles our cast—now including Matthew Goode's Finn Polmar—might find themselves inhabiting this coming season, now that everything is irrevocably and pretty horribly different.

So there you have it. The Good Wife Binge Guide. What do you think? Good Wife fans, anything to add, or correct, or holler about? Maybe try and be cagey about the bigger twists of S5, since the exclusive Amazon deal means it's not on Hulu Plus yet? Normally Captain Spoiler Warning types piss me off too, but this is one time where I think a little decorum might be called for. Just a thought.

[ Images via Getty]

Morning After is a new home for television discussion online, brought to you by Gawker. Follow @GawkerMA and read more about it here.

Grandmothers Rejoice as Cool Pope Marries Couples Living in Sin

$
0
0

Grandmothers Rejoice as Cool Pope Marries Couples Living in Sin

Cool Pope is at it again. This Sunday, he's going to marry 20 couples who are already cohabiting. Some of the couples even have kids! Their poor Catholic grandmothers are going to feel so much better now. (Cohabitation is a sin in the Catholic Church).

According to the Associated Press, the couples getting married on Sunday range in age from mid-20s all the way to late-50s. One of the brides, Gabriella, told La Repubblica she was shocked when she and her fiancee were picked: "We didn't feel worthy, because of our age and personal background." Gabriella has a daughter from a previous relationship, and her fiancee has had an annulment. She continued:

We've known each other for five years and our wanting to get married in the church stems from no longer wanting to live in a union and with feelings that are deprived of some of the sacraments.

Earlier this year, the Pope baptized a baby whose parents weren't married in the Church.

[Photo via AP]

Playboy Ex-Governor Mark Sanford, Argentinian Lover Call Off Wedding

$
0
0

Playboy Ex-Governor Mark Sanford, Argentinian Lover Call Off Wedding

Mark Sanford, the one-time South Carolina governor who chose the undeniably better life of living with his Argentinian lover-turned-girlfriend before heading to Washington as a member of the House, announced in a lengthy Facebook post that he and that girlfriend have called off their impending wedding. (Don't worry, they'll still fuck.)

In the post—which, it should be noted, is mostly quasi-insane ramblings about Jesus—Sanford says that he and his fiancée María Belén Chapur have decided to postpone their marriage indefinitely after Sanford's ex-wife Jenny filed another lawsuit stemming from their divorce in 2010.

No relationship can stand forever this tension of being forced to pick between the one you love and your own son or daughter, and for this reason Belen and I have decided to call off the engagement. Maybe there will be another chapter when waters calm with Jenny, but at this point the environment is not conducive to building anything given no one would want to be caught in the middle of what's now happening. Belen is a remarkably wonderful woman who I have always loved and I will be forever grateful for not only the many years we have known and loved each other, but the last six very tough ones wherein she has encouraged me and silently borne its tribulations with her ever warm and kind spirit.

The "tension" Sanford refers to in that paragraph is outlined in thousands of words in the post, but here is a helpful summary from the Washington Post:

Things have grown especially tense in recent weeks after Jenny Sanford demanded that the congressman undergo a psychiatric evaluation and complete anger management and parenting classes as part of divorce proceedings. She also sought to put limitations on her ex-husband's visitation rights with their youngest son, who is 16.

More specifically, Jenny Sanford is seeking to essentially ban their children from spending the night with Mark Sanford in the presence of his girlfriend. Sanford, presumably quoting from the new lawsuit, says his wife is looking to prevent him from "exposing the minor child overnight to a member of the opposite sex not related by blood who could be reasonably construed as a paramour." Sanford says that his kids have never spent the night with him and Belen, but is nonetheless acquiescing anyway.

In any event, Sanford is leaving his fate in the hands of a higher power:

She wanted full control of their custodial accounts which were very significant in size, I gave it. I did these things for two reasons. One, because my good friend Cubby Culbertson had reminded me that it was all God's - and if he wanted you to have more, you would…and if he wanted you to have less, you would have less. He accordingly strongly advised against spending money and time and controversy fighting over things that God ultimately controlled.

Lawyers, alas, may actually be more powerful than God.

[image via AP]

What to Watch This Weekend on TV

$
0
0

Last night around midnight-thirty something real dumb happened on the Comedy Central. Those city slickers up north decided that Adam Devine's House Party—the only source of A) decent standup for my generation, besides just going out and getting it on the street like some kind of naïve comedy ho, and B) perfect Adam Devine's perfect Adam Devinity, which gives me the vital energy I need to survive and to thrive—should be coming on around midnight-thirty now, as in like right around Fourthmeal... Which okay, now that I'm saying it on paper I get it. It's not an insult, it's how we do—and in fact, maybe that's why Beware the Batman comes on right around last call on Saturdays, too. Cool. Movin' on to this weekend's entertainment.

FRIDAY

At 8/7c. we get a 48 Hours Special on the Pistorius verdict, in case you're still interested in that mess for some reason; there's a Secrets of Fashion Week special on E!; The CW's Masters of Illusion covers Levitation this week; and Fox's Utopia continues to premiere and to disappoint.

At 9/8c. it's Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders ("Time to Get Serious," haha), a new Deadly Women on ID, PBS Special on the painter and son of Whistler's Mother, James McNeill Whistler, and the twelfth premiere of Real Time on HBO (guests including Pelosi, John Huntsman, Andrea Mitchell and Jerry Seinfeld, so, just about as pleasant as usual) and the series finale of Kitchen Nightmares. I want the last shot of that show to be Gordon Ramsey waking up in a cold sweat, breathing heavy and then he's like "It was just a dream!" and in bed next to him is the heavily muscled Peabo Bryson and he holds Gordon very tightly, singing in a nearly imperceptibly quiet falsetto, until Gordon falls back asleep.

At 10/9c. Bill Maher has stand-up special in case you weren't feeling grossed out already, there's a new Knick on Cinemax, an hour of Young Hot & Crooked ("Love Triangle"/"Young, Fast and out of Control") on ID, and the adorable new Syfy show for grownups and the young at heart alike, all about zombies and acting quirky, Z Nation.

SATURDAY

At around 7:30/6:30c. you have the UCLA beating UT game, sorry, on Fox; on NBC it's Purdue being beaten by Notre Dame. Then at 8/7c. Spike has an episode of Cops called "Step Away From the Cutlery," PBS has an hour of people performing our national anthem for its bicentennial, and the two-hour Reckless finale is somehow not titled "Reckoning." Big-ass news though is the Lifetime Original Movie Deliverance Creek, a Civil War romance by Nicholas Sparks starring Lauren Ambrose.

Did you hear me I said it is a Lifetime Original Civil War romance by Nicholas Sparks starring Lauren Ambrose. That's a thing that is happening Saturday, in real life.

Otherwise at 9/8c. you've got Doctor Who and Intruders on BBC America, Outlander, an H2 Special on the White House, Iyanla continues to Fix the unfixable Life of the man with 34 kids we met last week, and as always there is a Ghost Inside Your Child on LMN. Then at 10/9c. it's those irrepressible Six Little McGhees, the return of ID's Who The Fuck Did I Marry ("Possum & The Snake"!) and then at 11/10c. the second episode of Starz's The Chair.

SUNDAY

Sunday morning, by the by, brings us the Ultimate Spider-Man crossover (on Disney XD) with anti-drug PSA interracial teen mutant lovers Cloak & Dagger that you have been waiting for your entire life. Then around noonish it's OWN's Help Desk with yet more of the very helpful Iyanla, and the eighth Real Housewives of Melbourne.

At 8/7c., after Football Night in America is already underway on NBC, there will begin a countdown to the two-hour Miss America on ABC, Real Housewives of New Jersey, and the Yankees at the Orioles. Me, I will most likely be watching The Roosevelts on PBS, and/or an NGC special on War Generals of America. Big Brother airs at 8:30/7:30c., or so they claim, and on NBC it's Bears/49ers before or around then, but both of those claims seem highly gullible to me.

At 9/8c., it's an hour-long American Dad block, the second Boardwalk Empire and antepenultimate Ray Donovan, and Long Island Medium. At 10/9c., then you have a double episode of TLC's Angels Among Us, The Strain and The Lottery, new Manhattan and Masters of Sex, and a BBC America Special called "Harry at 30" that I presume is just a person telling you to get some fucking self-esteem because if you find yourself attracted to Prince Harry, you are an agent of your own self-destruction, because he is garbage and what you are saying is that you have no self-worth. Your body should know better, and if it doesn't, it needs a better steward.

Anyway so I assume that's what the "Harry at 30" Special will be about—hot, life-affirming sex with non-racist non-trash—and then John Oliver or Watch What Happens: Live (Mindy Kaling and Meredith Viera!? An embarrassment of riches) and then it's off to bed, at least for me.

Morning After is a new home for television discussion online, brought to you by Gawker. What are you watching tonight? What are we missing out on? Recommendations and discussions down below.

Viewing all 24829 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images