Guest blog! Amy Grindhouse!

The leggy Brazilian must have baked in the sun too long, or perhaps ingested too much toxic fake bake, as she seemed a little confused.

In a world where money and celebrity clout can easily buy your way around the adoption process and reality is nothing but a distant dream, perhaps it is no real surprise that Gisele has no idea whom she has given birth to recently.

In Vanity Fair, as quoted in brief by OK! Magazine, Gisele claims not to know that her stepson John Edward Thomas Moynahan is not actually her own flesh and blood.

In an episode which one could conceivably attribute to a prolonged dizzy spell brought on by a lack of carbs, the well known stunner claimed that husband Tom Brady’s love child with Bridget Moynahan, born in late 2007, was “100%” hers.

After reading some of Gisele’s quotes, even I was left wondering what on earth she was talking about. Though she managed to not claim to be my mother too, I could not help but wonder. According to her, a child’s maternity has nothing to do with carrying them, but merely a close physical proximity.

Gisele elaborates and then lies down after feeling faint from the effort of stringing so many words together, by saying that she loves Tom Brady’s child “as if he were [her own].”

She also calls John “my child” and mentions that she “[felt] like he was [her] son, from the first day.” Yikes.

Gisele trying to get her grubby mitts on baby John might be the latest well-manicured slap in the face for Bridget, who did not even get a look in, once the ‘boobs from Brazil’ appeared over the horizon.

In late 2006, Tom essentially tossed aside his newly preggers partner and fell head over heels with his new piece of South American arm candy.

From OK! Magazine Gisele says of the situation:

“I want him to have a great relationship with his mom, because that’s important, but I love him the same way as if he were mine. I already feel like he’s my son, from the first day. He’s a little angel – the sweetest, most cuddly, loving baby. I feel blessed to have him in my life… It was definitely a surprise for both of us. In the beginning, you’re living this romantic fantasy; you’re thinking this can’t be true, it’s so good! And then, whoops – wake-up call!”

Models are not all stupid, though some make it seem that way. You only have to stand back and attempt to take in the magnificent glory of Tyra Banks’ all-powerful ‘five head’, to see that beauty and brains often do mix.

Although Gisele is not yet accustomed to even the thought of birthing a little one, and stretching all kinds of uncomfortable and unmentionable places, you would think that she would have the fortitude of mind to work out that she cannot just call “shotgun” or whatever and claim a baby for herself… right?

This was a guest blog by Amy Grindhouse, who couldn’t be any more wonderful if she was made of pies.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

And since Kate Winslet has an interview in the new issue of Vanity Fair, it stands to reason that she should get as absolutely naked as flipping possible in every single accompanying picture. But here’s the crazy thing – Kate Winslet’s naked body actually looks fairly decent in the photos.

And this is chubby old Kate Winslet we’re talking about here – lumpy bumpy old chubby old Kate Winslet. So if her naked pictures looked good, it’s only logical to assume that it was because they’d been mangled beyond all recognition with an airbrush. Just don’t mention that around Kate Winslet, because there’s a strong chance she’ll punch your face off if she hears you.

We’ve always had a soft spot for Kate Winslet – she’s living proof that if a fat child loses enough weight by the time she grows up, then the resulting combination revenge and lack of self-esteem means that she’ll almost definitely take off all of her clothes whenever she gets the chance.

And, make no mistake, Kate Winslet was a fat child. That’s not a secret – Kate Winslet mentioned it herself during the endless insecure whine that passed for her interview with Vanity Fair this month. However, while the text might have painted a picture of a woman so wracked with neuroses that she appeared to be impersonating Woody Allen on a particularly brutal episode of 10 Years Younger, the accompanying photos told a very different story indeed.

The accompanying photos, in fact, told a story of a sexy, unusually confident woman sprawled naked across a fur rug with her bum sticking out. The only logical explanation for that, given the chasm between the grubby little lardpot described in the interview and the beautiful woman in the photographs, was that Kate Winslet’s naked body had been airbrushed and Photoshopped and tinkered with until it bore no resemblance to real life at all.

That was the rumour, anyway. But people should know that if you go around spreading rumours about Kate Winslet’s body then you’ll end up with either a lawsuit or a really ruddy strongly-worded letter from one of her employees. Which is what happened yesterday, as People reports:

“Kate is furious at suggestions that her body has been airbrushed,” her rep tells PEOPLE exclusively. “She is in terrific shape and what you see is how she looks or she would never have agreed to pose for those shots.”

You hear that, haters? Kate Winslet’s naked body wasn’t digitally retouched at all, so you can go and shove it. Except that, in truth, the photos were retouched a bit for the magazine, with manipulations made to colouring and skin tone. But that doesn’t mean that Kate Winslet isn’t furious, because she is. She’s furious.

In fact, Kate Winslet is so furious at all those people who claimed that her digitally-retouched Vanity Fair photos had been digitally-retouched that she’s vowed to forgo any digital airbrushing whatsoever next time she poses naked for a glossy magazine. What you see will be all natural Winslet, from the lumps on her body to the throbbing vein that’s splattered across the side of her head because she keeps getting worked up about stuff that nobody else gives a shit about.

Still, despite all this talk of airbrushing, we shouldn’t lose focus of the big picture here – that Kate Winslet has successfully made the leap from being naked in films to being naked in magazines. Congratulations Kate – now you’re only inches away from fulfilling your dream of starting your own premium subsciption-based website to be naked in.

But she is. Oh lord, she is. It turns out that Kate Winslet is so thunderingly insecure – about absolutely everything – that she makes Ally McBeal look like Darth Vader after a manicure and half a bottle of gin. How do we know this? Because Kate Winslet has raked over her endless neuroses for the new issue of Vanity Fair.

So, to save you the effort of buying the new issue of Vanity Fair, here’s a list of all the things that Kate Winslet is insecure about: her weight as a teenager, her weight now, her dress sense, the way she looks ‘wrong’, her stupid pointy nose, her awful screechy voice, her fat hands, the way the last syllable of her surname rhymes with a swearword and her ridiculous big face. We may have made some of those up, by the way.

Kate Winslet has always stood as a shining example of a real woman. She doesn’t look like the androgynous four-year-olds that fashion designers like so much, and she doesn’t waddle round in a bikini covered with six tins of goose fat and enough lipgloss to fell a moose like the models in the lad’s mags do.

Instead Kate Winslet is a torchbearer for normal women across the globe; a woman who says it’s OK to have curves, and that the important thing is to feel comfortable in yourself.

True, you might develop a confusing compulsion to go topless in public at the drop of a hat to overcompensatingly prove that you’re comfortable with how you look, and you might also start flinging batshit lawsuits around to prove that you haven’t been on any diets because that’s just how bloody comfortable you are with yourself, OK?, but that’s by the by.

But even though she’s obviously so completely comfortable with her own body that she even managed to get her boobs out in a family movie about a horrific maritime disaster, sometimes even Kate Winslet succumbs to a spot of insecurity about how she looks. Well, we say ‘a spot’. Actually we mean ‘a gigantic, all-consuming tidal wave big enough to destroy the entire planet’, as Vanity Fair found out recently:

“I never had a desire to be famous I was fat. I didn’t know any fat famous actresses. I just did not see myself in that world at all, and I’m being very sincere. You know, once a fat kid, always a fat kid… You always think that you just look a little bit wrong or a little bit different from everyone else. And I still sort of have that.”

We haven’t read all the way to Kate Winslet’s Vanity Fair interview, but we’re pretty certain that it ended with her staring at her own hands, screaming “I’M A MONSTER! A MONSTER!”, dousing herself in petrol, setting herself on fire and running haphazardly around the room knocking everything over until she toppled out of an open window.

Or maybe we’re wrong. Either way, Kate Winslet probably hasn’t got much to worry about. Apart from the fact that, you know, this whole interview was ostensibly to promote Kate Winslet’s new movie The Reader, and the potential audience for a highbrow movie about the Holocaust probably won’t be too easily swayed by hearing sob stories about what a chubby little toddler Kate used to be.

Still, we can’t wait to see what she does to promote Revolutionary Road. If we were a glossy magazine we’d be teeing up the headline ‘Kate Winslet: Boo Hoo, I’ve Got A Big Vagina’ right now just in case.

So imagine our delight when we discovered that Vanity Fair has just published its international best-dressed list for 2008. A big list of people who are primarily best-known for being able to buy, choose and wear clothes without ending up looking like big a pile of sweaty bumrags? Who wouldn’t love that!

Especially when the Vanity Fair best-dressed list contains such notable names from the world of entertainment as three-time Academy Award-winner Barack Obama’s wife, multi-platinum recording artist Prince William’s girlfriend and regional puppy-juggling contest semi-finalist Nicolas Sarkozy’s missus. Boy, do they know how to wear clothes adequately.

We never thought we’d ever say this – and we’d happily take a slap on the cheek from any of you for saying it – but don’t you miss Kate Moss?

No, us neither most neither most of the time to be honest. But now that Kate Moss has been usurped as supermodel du jour by that funny-looking Agyness woman, it makes things a lot more uncertain when best-dressed lists rolled around.

Time was when you knew that Kate Moss would be named as the world’s best-dressed woman no matter what magazine was publishing the list. But she’s not around so much any more, so who else is there to call best-dressed?

Michelle Obama, apparently. According to the just-out Vanity Fair best-dressed list, Barack Obama’s wife Michelle literally wears clothes better than anyone else on the face of the earth. Forget lobbying for universal healthcare, it’s deeply important that potential first ladies know which way up a blouse goes.

Anyway, why did Vanity Fair call Michelle Obama the best-dressed person in the world?

“Because she’s our commander in sheath.”

What? Seriously, that’s your reason? Because she’s your commander in sheath? What does that even mean? Isn’t a sheath a condom? You like Michelle Obama because she wears condoms? That’s such an odd thing to say, Vanity Fair.

But never mind. You like Michelle Obama because sometimes she walks around in giant person-sized condoms. That’s fine. Who else is on the list? Carla Bruni? Why is she there?

“Because we like her French twist.”

OK, we sort of get it. She is French, after all. You’re forgiven, Vanity Fair. Who else? Kate Middleton?

“Because we’re throwing her hats in the ring.”

You’re what? What ring? Does Kate Middleton wear a lot of hats? Is she famous for that? Why are you throwing her hats into the ring? Because you like them or because you don’t like them? You need to explain yourself a bit better, Vanity Fair. But, hey, at least you put some thought into your reasoning. It’s not like you just rattled off the first rubbish pun based on her name that you could think of. That’d be awful, it really would. Wait, what’s this?

BROTHERS ANDREA and PIETRO CLEMENTE “Because they’re the crème de Clemente.”

MORLEY SAFER “Because he always plays it Safer.”

IRIS APFEL “Because she’s the Apfel of our eye.”

SISTERS ALEXANDRA KOTUR and FIONA KOTUR MARIN “Because they’re Koturs de force.”

BRYAN LOURD “Because he is the Lourd of the manner.”

Oh fuck off, Vanity Fair. Just fuck off.

But try telling that to Disney. Even though she seems more comfortable these days posing vulnerably under satin sheets and draping herself over her father’s lap in an uncomfortably sexual way, Miley Cyrus is still one of Disney’s biggest cash cows. And that’s why the corporation has refused to scrap Miley’s upcoming concert set for Saturday.

However, in a nod to the effect of the scandal and her new audience, Disney has staged a last-minute change of venue for the concert. Now, instead of performing at the sun-dappled Disney World Resort in Orlando, Miley Cyrus will be appearing at a grotty underground basement in front of an audience comprised soley of raincoat-wearing middle-aged, yellow-eyed, nicotine-stained Frenchmen.

Miley Cyrus has been at the centre of a gigantic shitstorm this week. Those not-quite topless Miley Cyrus photos in Vanity Fair have been perhaps the most controversial photos published since those regrettable hecklerspray/ strap-on/ farmyard animal/ nun/ cheesecake snaps of 2004.

The fallout from the Miley Cyrus topless photo scandal has been so red-hot that it’s been inescapable. Photographer Annie Leibovitz has been blamed, Miley Cyrus’ parents have been blamed, the news media has endlessly discussed the fine line between art and manipulation of children, and it’s meant that we’ve all had plenty of chances to see what Miley Cyrus looks like with her top off whether we want to or not.

But one thing’s for certain. Long gone is the old Miley Cyrus, the Miley Cyrus who’d sell a billion records with her fresh-faced wholesome grin and fortunate inability to get pregnant. And in her place is a brand-new, all grown-up Miley Cyrus who isn’t afraid to explore her sexuality in public even though she’s legally not allowed to be sexually active at all until November 2010.

But tell that to Disney. To Disney, Miley Cyrus is the big-eyed redneck face of Hannah Montana who makes them enough money to keep their diamond-encrusted jetski practice pools topped up with fresh unicorn tears all the time.

It doesn’t matter that the wheels are already starting to fall off the Miley Cyrus train, and that this topless photo scandal looks set to destroy Miley’s career for good. If anything, it just means that Miley Cyrus needs to work twice as hard to make Disney as much money as possible before she becomes just another washed up former child star. And that’s why Disney is still wheeling Miley Cyrus out to Disney World this weekend to sing and dance like a monkey on Saturday. E! Online reports:

E! News has confirmed that the 15-year-old, who has been working in Nashville this week on her upcoming Hannah Montana movie, will go forward as planned with a special concert set to take place at (where else?) the Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando on Saturday. As far as Cyrus’ participation continuing as scheduled, Disney spokeswoman Brenda Kelly Grant told E! News that “nothing has changed on our production.”

Actually, maybe Disney has a point. The more it lingers on those Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair photos, the bigger deal it becomes. It’s probably for the best, in fact, that Miley Cyrus ploughs on through as normal, because the pictures will be easily resigned to the past soon enough if she refuses to listen to all the kneejerk outcry coming from smallminded fools.

Plus this way Miley Cyrus gets to use the concert to try out her new songs I’m Just A Sexy Schoolgirl, Can I Lick Your Lollipop? and Wow Daddy (Your Arms Are So Big).

Read more:

Miley Still Working for the Mouse – E! Online

We can’t burn down Miley Cyrus’ house because she’s already apologised to her fans and blamed all the evil grown-ups for exploiting her – so that just leaves Annie Leibovitz, the woman who took the photos of Miley Cyrus in the first place. Let’s get her!

Except we can’t, because Annie Leibovitz has apologised for the Miley Cyrus photos as well. OK, maybe ‘apologised’ is a strong word – instead Annie Leibovitz has called everyone stupid for not appreciating the beauty of her art, but she phrased it like an apology. An apology that we accept. We think. Oh, we’re so confused. Let’s burn down the camera factories!

We’ve just invented a new rule by which to live our lives – we’ll never ever let Annie Leibovitz take our photo. Look at her track record – Annie Leibovitz takes a picture of John Lennon, John Lennon gets shot. Annie Leibovitz takes a picture of the Queen, the controller of BBC1 has to resign. Annie Leibovitz takes a picture of Miley Cyrus, everyone gets so offended that their eyes shrivel up and their brains explode. It’s a pattern, that’s for sure.

The new edition of Vanity Fair shows an Annie Leibovitz picture of Miley Cyrus topless, or at least topless if it weren’t for both of her arms and a giant blanket that covers 90% of her body. Not really topless at all, come to think of it, but that hasn’t stopped Disney Channel spokesmen and outraged groups from frothing and wailing about exploitation and the loss of innocence and child manipulation and whatnot.

However, even though Miley Cyrus and Miley Cyrus’ parents and some of Miley Cyrus’ representatives were present during this ‘topless’ photoshoot and were able to see exactly what all the pictures looked like as they were being taken, Miley Cyrus has already apologised to her fans, claiming that she was somehow tricked into posing for them.

So that puts the blame squarely at the feet of Annie Leibovitz, right? She’s the evil monster who took the photos, so what does she have to say for herself? Is she sorry for being such a child-manipulating witch? Is she? Huh? Turns out she sort of is a bit, as OK reports:

In a statement released on Monday, Annie said: “I’m sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted. Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it. The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful.”

Beautiful? Ugh, you massive paedo-fetishist! It’s a picture of a mostly-dressed teenager, for god’s sake! That’s sick and disgusting and it might end up slightly reducing the absurd tidal wave of cash that Miley Cyrus has created for Disney! Won’t you think of Disney, Annie Leibovitz, you disgusting monster? What’s Disney going to do for money now? The Aristocats 2? You make us sick, Annie Leibovitz. Sick.

However, if you’re a 15-year-old girl reading this, be sure to take this very important moral from the story: never let a world-renowned photographer take your picture. Feel free to take amateur photos of yourself rolling around in your underwear and upload them onto the internet, because nobody seems to mind too much about those. Just don’t have any less risque ones taken professionally, OK?

Read more:

MILEY PHOTOS WERE ‘MISINTERPRETED’ – OK

The Vanity Fair Oscars party – probably the most prestigious Oscar night party held by a magazine specifically for actresses to get trollied on free booze because they're not as good as Cate Blanchett – has been cancelled.

It's a blow to the credibility of the Oscars and no mistake – with no Vanity Fair party to go to, Elizabeth Hurley's got nowhere to topple out of in front of some cameramen even though she's never been able to make a film that hasn't made us want to stab ourselves in the neck. Won't someone think of Elizabeth Hurley?

The Oscars, it's fair to say, are up in the air this year. And that's got everything to do with the writers' strike. If the writers' strike continues then the Oscars will go the same way as the Golden Globes with no stars attending, no clips of movies shown, no witty between-gong banter scripted and – worst of all – Atonement winning something.

But some are saying that the writers' strike will be over by the weekend, and if that's the case then the Oscars will be business as usual – full of trussed-up actors and actresses parading up and down a red carpet talking about what an important job they do as if they all worked down the mines. And even though half the stars invited didn't turn up, Monday's Oscar luncheon reflected this bullish 'business as usual' attitude with aplomb.

However, it's not going to be business as usual for the Oscars. And that's because Vanity Fair has decided to cancel its traditional Oscars party. E! Online reports:

"After much consideration, and in support of the writers and everyone else affected by this strike, we have decided that this is not the appropriate year to hold our annual Oscar party," the New York-based magazine said in a statement. "We want to congratulate all of this year’s nominees and we look forward to hosting our 15th Oscar party next year." A VF spokeswoman wouldn't say how much money the mag is losing by scrapping the party so close to showtime, but she said that much of the materials that have been ordered can be used next year. 

Like sandwiches, for example. They'll keep for another year. And over the next 12 months the giant ice sculpture of an Oscar statue ordered by Vanity Fair might warp and buckle until it starts to look like Danny DeVito on The View, but screw it. Those famous bastards don't know they're born anyway. 

So with no Vanity Fair party to go to, what's left for the celebrities to go to after the Oscars? Well, there's always Elton John's AIDS fundraiser – but who wants to think about something as mopey as AIDS when they've just won a sparkly golden man for memorising some words better than anyone else? And then there's the Governors Ball held by the Academy, but that just sounds like it'll be full of retired colonial bombardiers with gout. So that means that stars can either make their own entertainment or do an Eddie Murphy and bugger off home immediately after they don't win. 

Of course, the worst-hit by the death of the Vanity Fair Oscars party are the British breakfast TV presenters whose only job is to stand by the entrance of the Vanity Fair party and shout "George! George! Angelina! Keira!" at stars as they walk past ignoring them. Without the Vanity Fair Oscars party to cover, chances are you'll see them standing outside your local Argos on the morning of February 25 trying to interview a tramp because he looks a bit like Nick Nolte. Won't someone think of the tramps?

Read more:

Oscars Strike Out with Vanity Fair - E! Online 

And just as well, too, because the Vanity Fair Indiana Jones 4 piece answers everything that even the most ardent Indiana Jones fan will have wondered. For example, what's Indiana Jones 4 about? We don't know. Is Shia LaBeouf's character going to be Indiana Jones' son? We don't know that either. Is Indiana Jones 4 going to be good? Nope – still no clue. What's the closest thing that George Lucas can compare Indiana Jones 4 to? A chair. That's a chair.

So that's that all cleared up, then.

Circle May 23 in your diaries, everyone, because it's a very important day – the day after Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is released. All being well, it'll be the day that this ever-building level of Indiana Jones hype will start to ebb. Just the other day we noticed a big Indiana Jones 4 poster at our local cinema, and now the three main ingredients of the movie have been talking to Vanity Fair – and there's still close to half a year until we'll get to see the bastard.

God knows what'll happen in May to keep this promotional momentum up – perhaps all newborn babies will have face transplants to make them look more like Harrison Ford. We wouldn't be against that, actually – so long as they're not made to look more like George Lucas. Imagine that. Urgh.

Anyway, the Indiana Jones 4 Vanity Fair article. Technically, aside from some non-committal babbling two years ago, it marks the first time that anything has been given away about the movie. Except the casting (we already knew that Cate Blanchett and Ray Winstone and Shia LaBeouf had signed up) and the title (Shia blabbed that one on TV) and most of the other secrets (thanks, blabbermouth extra!), anyway.

And except for the fact that neither Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or Harrison Ford seem to be in any particular rush to divulge many Indiana Jones 4 secrets as well. But fans of lighting and editing techniques are going to have a whole lot of fun, because that's primarily what Steven Spielberg wants to talk about:

"We went right back to the blazing Technicolor style of the first three installments. … I didn't want to update Indiana Jones to the 1950 beyond hair, makeup, costumes and cars. I wanted it to look very similar to the first three pictures. I never wanted to get away from the B-movie, pulp feeling of the entire cliffhangers era of the '40s and '50s, the old Republic serials."

And as for George Lucas, well, he's got his chair analogy and he's going to jolly well stick to it:

"You'd never know there was 20 years between shooting. And I think people will be amazed. It's like sitting in a big old comfortable chair you sat in: 'Gee, it's just the same.'"

Not that anyone's going to actually enjoy Indiana Jones 4, though, George Lucas already sort of dislikes it:

“I know the critics are going to hate it. They already hate it. So there’s nothing we can do about that. They hate the idea that we’re making another one. They’ve already made up their minds… The fans are all upset. They’re always going to be upset. ‘Why did he do it like this? And why didn’t he do it like this?’ They write their own movie, and then, if you don’t do their movie, they get upset about it."

So that's that, then. Indiana Jones 4. It's like a big pulpy chair that everyone will hate except for people who don't like Indiana Jones. Perfect.

Read more:

Keys To The Kingdom – Vanity Fair 

So really you'd think that Katherine Heigl would have enjoyed being in such a phenomenally well-received comedy movie, since it's paved her way to starring in a bunch of other inane-looking romantic comedies. But not a bit of it, because Katherine Heigl has said in an interview with Vanity Fair that Knocked Up was "hard to love" because it's "a little sexist." But then perhaps Katherine Heigl is confusing 'sexist' with 'capable of eliciting human responses from viewers' – something that Grey's Anatomy has never managed to really do, unless you count yawning as a human response.

By and large, Katherine Heigl was a revelation in Knocked Up, because it showed that a) she could act and b) she had a sense of humour. Compare that to Katherine Heigl's time on Grey's Anatomy when most people either a) didn't know who she was or b) didn't care who she was, and you'll see the difference.

However, behind the scenes of Grey's Anatomy Katherine Heigl gained a bit of a reputation for being outspoken – she was an integral part in the 'Get Isaiah Washington Fired' campaign of earlier this year – and that seems to have bled through to her movie work.

Because – despite being in Knocked Up, a movie that some critics called the funniest American film in years, and playing a role that thousands of actresses would have killed for – Katherine Heigl has decided to slag the film off in an interview with Vanity Fair:

"It was a little sexist. It paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys. … Ninety-eight percent of the time it was an amazing experience, but it was hard for me to love the movie."

Silly Katherine Heigl. Someone in her position should know that if you star in one Judd Apatow movie, you're more or less allowed to star in every other Judd Apatow movie ever made until the end of time. So by laying into Knocked Up, there's a chance that Katherine Heigl has destroyed the possibility of guaranteed work and giant movie star paychecks for some time.

Not that we're against what Katherine Heigl says, of course. It's refreshing to see an actress talk so honestly about her work, while simultaneously expressing her feelings about an important topic like sexism. But it's just as well that female opinion doesn't count as much as male opinion, or else we'd really have to sit up and take notice of what she was saying. We think it was about housework or curtains or something.

Read more:

Star of 'Knocked Up' calls film 'a little sexist' – Chicago Sun-Times