Just as it seems to be a weekly occurrence that Lindsay Lohan gets arrested, Alec Baldwin has once again let his temper get the better of him. It all started when a Daily Mail journalist reported that Baldwin’s 29-year-old wife was tweeting during James Gandolfini’s funeral. Journalist George Stark wrote “The pregnant yoga instructor’s social media feed was full of upbeat posts while ‘The Sopranos’ star’s friends, family, and co-stars were gripped with grief at a New York Catholic church. Messages included a request for ideas about wedding anniversary presents and promotional notes about her upcoming appearance on the Rachel Ray show.”
Baldwin didn’t find the story about his wife Hilaria all that hilarious. He claims she left her phone in the car. She also told reporters that she never tweeted from the funeral. Baldwin then went to Twitter with “It’s disgraceful that a reporter would manufacture and publish a story and not call for comment or explanation – especially when it’s intended to take away attention from honoring the memory of a beloved figure like James Gandolfini. My wife and I attend a funeral to pay our respects to an old friend, and some toxic Brit writes this f***ing trash.” He added that he would find the writer, and “f*** you up, you toxic little queen.”
What I found hilarious is that Hilaria Baldwin tweeted “Lying and bullying are shameful.” Yet, that’s something her husband seems to do quite often. Remember the messages he left for his young daughter in 2007? He was calling her an “ungrateful pig.” He said she “had no brains or decency as a human being.” Those were messages to an 11-year-old girl. Sure, he had gone through a messy divorce with the child’s mother (actress Kim Bassinger), but for him to put his kid in the middle of it, is just disgusting. A divorce is hard enough, without the kid feeling like a pawn between two fighting parents.
We can go back to when that same daughter was brought home from the hospital as a newborn. A photographer was across the street, hoping to score that first photo of the power couples baby. Now, as annoying as the paparazzi can be – what Baldwin did was over the line. He walked across the street to the photographer, and punched him square in the face. It broke his nose, and his glasses. He took Baldwin to court and guess what happened? He lost. Baldwin was able to convince the jury that he thought the guy may have had a gun and was there to harm his family. He was merely trying to defend himself (because…that’s what we do when we think somebody has a gun, we approach them).
It all makes you wonder if that character he played in Glengarry Glenn Ross was acting or just his true personality. What’s so bizarre about all his actions is that he starts out being right. For example, if his ex-wife was keeping their daughter from calling him back or having a relationship with him – that’s horrible and needed to be addressed. Yet that’s for him to do with the ex, the courts, and perhaps his lawyer. If the paparazzi is harassing you, you call the police. Or perhaps you do what Halle Berry did last week. She appeared at the Capitol in support of Senate Bill 606, which keeps the paparazzi from taking photos of the children of celebs. It may be one of the few things Berry has done right. Remember, she was involved in a hit-and-run that left a woman with a broken arm, and she had two boyfriends fighting over her in front of her young child. But I digress.
When Baldwin was on that airplane a few years ago, remember how he refused to turn off his cell phone? Not because he had an important call he had to take or anything like that. It was because he was playing Words With Friends. He got so belligerent when asked repeatedly to turn off the phone so the plane could take off, they had to remove him from the plane. I’d love to know what he would think if at his latest movie, or when doing a play on stage, people in the audience refused to turn their phones because they were playing games on it.
With his latest Twitter war, there are a number of problems with his responses. If the reporter did get his information wrong, and Hilaria wasn’t tweeting during the funeral, he could’ve jut said that. He could’ve also added “It would be nice if reports did their research before writing garbage.” Heck, he could even sue the journalist. I know that sounds crazy, but it works. Carol Burnett once won a million dollars in the late ‘70s, when the National Enquirer (known for sometimes making up stories about people). They wrote that she was drunk in a restaurant. Even if Baldwin doesn’t win anything financially, it would surely cost the newspaper legal bills. They wouldn’t be too happy with their reporter for faulty research in a story. Instead, Baldwin threatens to beat the guy up, and he calls him a “queen,” which is a derogatory term. That led to Baldwin firing his publicist (talk about a tough job). Baldwin then had this goofy explanation of the meaning of “queen”: “The idea of me calling this guy a ‘queen’ and that being something that people thought is homophobic…a queen to me has a different meaning. It’s somebody who’s just above. It doesn’t have any necessarily sexual connotations. To me a queen…I know women that act queeny, I know men that are straight that act queeny, and I know gay men that act queeny. It doesn’t have to be a definite sexual connotation, or a homophobic connotation. To me those are people who think the rules don’t apply to them.”
Now, for this explanation to make any bit of sense, I think Baldwin should’ve named one of these “straight men that act queeny.” Also, the reporter Baldwin is angry with, sure as heck better not be a homosexual, or none of that is relevant. For example, there’s a difference between Mel Gibson jokingly calling his manager a “stingy Jew” during a meeting, instead of an angry rant where he is anti-Semitic. That doesn’t mean either of them is good. It just means we can understand a person joking or ribbing a colleague with an inappropriate word or phrase a lot more than somebody doing it in anger.
GLAAD, an advocacy group for gays and lesbians, issued a statement from Baldwin that said “My ill-advised attack on George Stark of the Daily Mail had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of anyone’s sexual orientation. I would not advocate violence against someone for being gay and I hope that my friends at GLAAD and the gay community understand that my attack on Mr. Stark in no way was the result of homophobia.”
Now, I don’t think Baldwin is a homophobe. I just think he’s a jerk. And perhaps he doesn’t realize that, if you were beating a man in San Francisco and calling him a “queen” while doing it – you’d be charged with a hate crime on top of the assault. So the law disagrees with Baldwin on this point.
GLAAD spokesman Rich Ferraro said Baldwin’s language was improper, but that his tweets didn’t reflect his “history of actively supporting LGBT equality.”
He’s right about that. Baldwin has done political work with marriage equality groups. Guess what? Paula Deen has also employed African-Americans, and perhaps even donated to a few African-American causes. Mel Gibson has employed Jews. Yet Paula Deen just cost herself a lucrative career for saying the n-word 30 years ago. How is it Baldwin gets to keep doing movies and TV shows, with no ramifications from his constant boorish behavior?
Tina Fey said in an interview she pulled Lindsay Lohan aside when Lohan was hosting Saturday Night Live. She gave her a talk about how bad her partying was getting, and said Lohan cried and apologized. Well, has Fey pulled Baldwin aside and said “You need anger management, dude.”
I wonder the same thing about Jodi Foster. She’s buddies with Mel Gibson. We don’t need to go through all the reasons why Gibson is an anti-Semite, verbally abusive towards women, etc. Yet Foster doesn’t seem to mind. I’m wondering – if Gibson directed this anger and these types of comments towards gays and lesbians, would she still feel the same way about him?
Whoopi Goldberg also defended Gibson, although Goldberg seems to be a lot more consistent in forgiving people. She’s often commented on The View on how people say a lot of things, it doesn’t mean they hate a certain group. Certainly a valid point. Yet when studios spend so much to make movies, there’s one thing people forget. Those millions aren’t just going into special effects and filming. Sometimes the movie is paying an actor $20 million to star in the movie. They’re expected to go on talk shows and promote it, and not become a PR nightmare with things they say and do. Athletes have clauses written into their contract that can keep them from getting paid if they say or do stupid things. These “morality clauses” are all worded different. Sometimes they’re called behavioral, moral turpitude, personal conduct, etc. They’re often vaguely written, as to give the company an out without paying anything, when they severe ties with an athlete doing dumb stuff in their personal life. Perhaps studios should start doing the same thing with actors.
No studio would touch Robert Downey, Jr. after his drug arrests and jail time. Perhaps studios should start having actors sign these types of contracts if they have a history with their tempers. They can also throw in things like “If you start supporting a certain presidential candidate or talking politics in a way that can upset the other side – like Clint Eastwood talking to a chair while making fun of Obama – you will be fined, as that can easily keep a portion of the population from going to see the movie you’re in. A movie we invested millions and millions into.” Just think of how happy the producers of Kick-Ass 2 would’ve been if they had such a contract with Jim Carrey.