Farrah Fawcett, Angel in Waiting

By: James Hirsen

It’s not a typical celebrity passing. In American pop culture terms, Farrah Fawcett was an icon. She burst onto the Hollywood scene with her sparkling smile, sweet nature and blonde windblown tresses that set hairstyle trends for a decade. Farrah’s image adorned magazine covers galore, but more importantly her poster was tacked onto teen lockers, shop halls and office walls. All-American places. All-American dream girl. She was cheerleader, prom queen, sorority sweetheart and pageant winner all rolled into one. And she graced her way right on up to full-fledged movie star. Farrah’s career, from “Charley’s Angels” to the reality genre, was a shining example of an actress who lithely coped with a changing media landscape. Amazingly, the role that defined her fame, that of glamorous detective Jill Monroe who took assignments from the mysterious Charley, only lasted a year. The TV show was such a hit Farrah became part of that unusual celebrity club of those stars known by their first names only. If you said Farrah, folks knew exactly who you were talking about. Like Betty Grable in an earlier era, Farrah became the pin-up girl of her generation. The photo of Farrah in a red bathing suit quickly became the biggest selling poster of all time with an unprecedented 12 million copies sold. Farrah proved she was more than just a pretty face when she took a part in an Off-Broadway play called “Extremities,” and she received critical acclaim. She then tackled a difficult subject in “The Burning Bed,” a TV-movie about an abused woman. It earned her an Emmy nomination. She starred in another complex made for TV film, “Nazi Hunter: The Beate Klarsfeld Story.” And she garnered a second Emmy nomination for a miniseries “Small Sacrifices.” More critical praise for her acting came from her portrayal of a wayward wife to Robert Duvall’s character in “The Apostle.” When she appeared as herself in the 2005 reality show, “Chasing Farrah,” the public had a glimpse of the deep love she and Ryan O’Neil shared. The tender relationship supplied a sort of tonic to the public, which offset the disappointing failure of marriages that is so widespread from Hollywood to D.C. Looks like the Angel got her wings.

Liam Neeson Upsets PETA Over Horse Carriage Controversy

Liam Neeson has Pink peeved.

He’s also made Chrissie Hynde crabby.

Why are the two singers steamed?

It’s over New York’s tradition of offering tourists horse-drawn carriages.

Forever in search of a cause, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) group has started a protest over the carriages because of alleged mistreatment of the horses.

Neeson, a self-professed horse person, claims that horses are not mistreated but actually pampered.

“They’ve been there for a 100 years and they’re an iconic part of New York,” the actor said. “I know many of these guys and I just hate how the horse-drawn carriage industry is being attacked by animal activists.”

“These are the fittest, well-fed, best-kept horses I have ever seen. I’m a horse rider and lover for many years. They have a good life. They work nine-hour days and they have a holiday. Seriously. If you’ve ever seen these stables… I’d move in tomorrow,” Neeson added.

PETA officials responded, saying, “Liam, maybe you’re right, let me ponder this for a moment… It does seem like horses would prefer to endure the freezing cold and the panicky booms, noisy traffic, and exhaust fumes of the city over living in a lush pasture.”

Guess only Mr. Ed can answer the question.

Disney Dumps ‘Narnia’

Disney has announced that the studio will not co-finance the third installment of Walden Media’s “Chronicles of Narnia” franchise, “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.”

It is widely believed by Hollywood insiders that Disney dropped the project because of the lower than expected box-office take for the second “Narnia” flick, “Prince Caspian.”

The first “Narnia” piled up $745 million internationally while “Caspian” only raked in $419 million.

Although the economic downturn is making Disney execs a tad more timid, they’re partly responsible for the skimpier “Caspian” numbers.

Unlike the first “Narnia,” rather than a Thanksgiving or Christmas release the sequel came out in the spring, and it was up against superhero summer fare like “Iron Man” and “Indiana Jones.” Disney tried to market it as an action flick with limited success.

Thankfully, Walden remains committed to C.S. Lewis’ remaining books.

And if Fox is as clever as its name it’ll jump into Disney’s old spot, snag a profit and hoist entertainment content higher at the same time.

James Hirsen, J.D., M.A. in Media Psychology, is a media analyst, teacher of mass media and entertainment law at Biola University and professor at Trinity Law School.

Don’t Make Missouri the CLONE ME STATE!

 

Scientists are supposed to be objective. So why is Big Biotech using high priced lawyers to draft and promote Missouri Amendment 2 which contains the blatant deception in the voting booth that it “bans human cloning”? Follow the money

• Amendment 2 creates a constitutional right to clone human embryos to be used as a cash crop for science experiments.

  To hide the truth, the 5 page Amendment refers only to “stem cell research” and “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” the scientific definition for cloning; the same method used to clone Dolly the sheep.”

• It allows cash-strapped college students to be paid thousands of dollars to be used as egg farms - at the risk of their life and their future fertility.

  This tricky amendment says on page 2 that women cannot be paid “valuable consideration” for their eggs – then it guts the definition of “valuable consideration” on page 5 such that women CAN be paid!

• It writes a blank check for the Biotech Industry to pick the pockets of Missouri taxpayers for their unethical and unproven cloning experiments – without telling voters about about this money grab in the 100-word ballot summary.

  Here’s the Blank Check hiding in Section 5 of the 2000 words that would be added by Amendment 2:

  “. . .no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided . . . to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research. . . .”