Mark Wahlberg is very quickly retracting his incredibly insensitive, inappropriate comments about 9/11. The actor went on record in an interview with Menâ€™s Journal where he ended up on some really weird speculation trip about the events of September 11. The actorÂ told the magazine that he was actually scheduled to travel on one of the planes but had changed his mind and booked an earlier flight. Had he stopped there, then we would have been okay. But he shot his mouth off completely saying that if he had actually been on United Airlines flight 93, he would have prevented 9/11 from happening. There’s fantasizing and then there’s complete bulls— and this falls into the latter, especially when he commented, “If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldnâ€™t have went down like it did.” He also added, “There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, â€˜OK, weâ€™re going to land somewhere safely, donâ€™t worry.”
As you can imagine, when common sense returned to him, he was probably as aghast by his comments as we were. He has issued an apology saying, “To speculate about such a situation is ridiculous to begin with.Â I deeply apologize to the families of the victims that my answer came off as insensitive, it was certainly not my intention.”
Mark Wahlberg, why are you bringing up 9/11 in an interview with Men’s Journal? Why are you bringing up 9/11 at all, especially to fantasize about how you could have stopped it from happening? In a new interview, the Contraband star went so far as to say if he had been a passenger on United Airlines flight 93, the events of September 11 would have gone a little different. “If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did,” Wahlberg says. That’s a pretty big “if,” Mark. As in, the biggest “if” of all time.
What makes Wahlberg’s claims kind of eerie (as well as somewhat insulting and really inappropriate) is the fact that, were it not for Mark’s decision to take an earlier flight, he would have actually been on one of the planes that was hijacked by terrorists. “There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, ‘OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry,” imagines Wahlberg. Whaaaaa? Do you think Mark’s interviewer just asked about his daily gym regiment and he went off on his absurd tangent? Mark Wahlberg, you keep this up and we will not say hello to our mothers for you.
[Photo: Getty Images]
Dakota Fanning’s banned Marc Jacobs ad was deemed too saucy for the good people of Britain early today, though so far the spot is considered safe for American eyes. Despite what you might think about the advert itself, Dakota (and Jacobs) certainly aren’t the first people to come up with a controversial campaign that had people gasping…or cringing…or just rolling their eyes. From the extremely sexual to the merely gross to the extremely sexual and gross, and starring celebs like Pamela Anderson, Keira Knightley and Jessica Alba, controversial ads are as common as, well, controversial ads getting banned. Check out some of the most memorable controversial advertising below!
Dakota Fanning’s modeling career has been blowing up over the past year, but at least one country wants to shield its eyes from her edgy editorials. The U.K. Ad Standards Authority just ruled that Dakota Fanning’s Marc Jacobs Oh Lola ad was too racy to run. According to the British organization, Dakota’s spot was inappropriate due to “the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle” which “drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualize a child.â€ Call us liberal hippies (our moms already do!), but we honestly did not see a problem with this image … until we heard that it was controversial. Now the whole Lolita image is really skeeving us out. So what do you think? Does Dakota’s ad squeak you out too, or do you think the Brits are dropping their monocles over nothing?
[Photo: Marc Jacobs/]
Hilary Swank, this Chechen birthday party scandal came out of nowhere! Almost as surprising as, say, hearing Justin Bieber get busted for international espionage, Entertainment Weekly reports that the New Year’s Eve star got dropped by her PR team 42West after attending festivities honoring alleged human rights violator Ramzan Kadyrov earlier this month. This news is almost as shocking as when Hilary momentarily tried to have a rom-com career. Did anyone actually see P.S. I Love You? Anyone at all?
The company reportedly dumped Swank after the two parties disagreed on how to handle the fallout of the birthday scandal, which involved Hilary accepting money to speak at the leader’s shindig. The Academy Award-winner also reportedly fired her manager Jason Weinberg over the controversy, in addition to promising to donate her speaking fee to charity. Wow. Who knew that, when Hilary isn’t playing tough characters with extremely defined jawlines, she’s a seriously trouble starter. You might as well have told us Swank was involved in a steroid scandal or something. No, don’t tell us! We don’t want to know!
It’s always so awkward when you go to the birthday party of someone you don’t know, and then you find out they are a Chechen leader accused of horrible human rights violations? Makes you wish you stayed home with good old Netflix Instant instead. Earlier today Hilary Swank apologized over Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov’s birthday concert, which the New Year’s Eve actress attended earlier this month. Controversial figure Kardyrov has been accused of a range of offenses from abduction to murder, in addition to making us never want to watch Million Dollar Baby ever again.
In addition to Swank, Kadyrov party was attended by Jean Claude Van Damme and a host of Russian celebrities. “I deeply regret attending this event,” Hilary, who reportedly did not know who the concert was for, said in a statement. “If I had a full understanding of what this event was apparently intended to be, I would never have gone.” Unfortunately for her P.R. people, Hilary simply loves to party all the time. Party all the time. Party all the tiiiiiiiiime.
Unless “photo shoot” means something complete different and 10,000 times more horrible than we think it means, Johnny Depp’s rape comments in his new Vanity Fair interview are bizarrely off-base, and not in the fun way Johnny Depp normally is. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Well, you just feel like youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re being raped somehow,” the Rum Diary actor tells the magazine about photo shoots. “Raped … It feels like a kind of weird — just weird, man.” Yes, the word “weird” seems fitting here. Not so much the sexual assault comparison. Someone get this man a thesaurus!
Depp isn’t the first celebrity to compare getting their photo taken to rape, just the latest. Last summer Kristen Stewart’s rape comments drew criticism from virtually everyone with a grasp of the English language, after the Twilight star said paparazzi photos “make me feel like IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m looking at someone being raped.” People are still using standard camera to take celebrity photos, right? Not some kind of crazy terror lasers? We’re just checking, because…that’s the only possible explanation we can come up with.
And the award for Biggest Diva goes too…Alec Baldwin in the Alec Baldwin Emmy joke controversy! The Daily News reports that the 30 Rock star bailed on tonight’s awards show after Fox cut a joke at the expense of their parent company News Corp and it’s CEO Rupert Murdoch. Apparently the joke involved a crack about Murdoch listening in on Baldwin’s phone call, a reference to the recent News of the World phone hacking controversy. “They edited out a line and he asked them to not air the segment,” a source reported. “He didn’t want to do something that had been edited afterwards because if it’s comedy and you take out a key line it just doesn’t work.” Also, because he’s Alec Baldwin.
Baldwin’s win for Biggest Diva tonight was so unsuspected, he didn’t even have time think to have a speech prepared. Just kidding, OF COURSE HE DID. “I understand NewsCorp killing that joke,” Alec Baldwin tweeted. “If I were enmeshed in a scandal where I hacked phones of families of innocent crime victims purely 4 profit, I’d want that 2 go away, 2.” Maybe next year, Aretha Franklin, Mariah Carey and Liza Minnelli. Maybe next year.
All together now: hoo boy. Despite Mel Gibson’s anti-semitic remarks coming to light in 2008Ã¢â‚¬Â¦then again in 2009Ã¢â‚¬Â¦and then maybe once or twice in 2010Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Mel Gibson’s Judah Maccabee movie, about the historical Jewish hero, is on the way from Warner Bros. At least we can safely say this doesn’t sound any crazier than The Beaver. That being said Gibson hasn’t been seen in public making vicious anti-woodland creature remarks. Yet.
Gibson is working on the film with screenwriter Joe Eszterhas, who has reportedly been lauded for his work in bringing attention to the atrocities of the Holocaust. On the other hand, Eszterhas also wrote Showgirls. Any chance this film is Mel’s way of saying, “Sorry about all that horrible stuff I said about you guys over and over again?” If so, maybe next he’ll be bringing us Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass biopics to make up forÃ¢â‚¬Â¦all that other horrible stuff he said.
You all remember those Lars von Trier Nazi comments that got the Melancholia director banned from the Cannes Film Festival this year? Publicly-made comments such as, “I understand Hitler.” and “He is not what we could call a good guy, but yeah, I understand much about him and I sympathize with him.” Hoo boy. Well, it turns out that it was all a big misunderstanding; Lars was just trying to tell everyone that we’re all, in fact, Nazis. Oh wait…whaaaaaaa?
“There was a point to this whole thing,” Trier told a Berlin audience gathered for a retrospective of his films, defending his offensive Cannes comments. “I think history shows that we are all Nazis somewhere, and there are a lot of things that can be suddenly set free, and the mechanics behind this setting-free is something we really should really investigate, and the way we do not investigate it is to make it a taboo to talk about it.” Von Trier did not explain why history wanted him to bring up Hitler in the middle of a film festival in front of a humiliated Kirsten Dunst, but we’re sure it had an excellent, completely-non-crazy reason.
[Photo: Getty Images]