Remember in 2017, when chino-clad Nazis marched in Charlottesville, Virginia with their tiki torches? The Nazis were overwhelmingly clean-cut white men in their 20s and 30s, and most of them traveled from out of state to do their sad Nazi stunt. Whenever I think of those Nazis, I think of Tucker Carlson and his whole deal. It’s Nazism wearing the mask of a Docker-clad dweeb, the chinless man-child who wears loafers and speaks in an educated voice about the need to “cleanse” society of immigrants, Muslims, feminists and (as always) Black folks. Carlson has been on Fox News prime time since 2016. Before that, he had a right-wing blog and he wrote books about how much he hates his mother, and he was on CNN for a while too. His tenure on Fox News has seen Carlson lean into every racist, misogynistic, white-supremacist dog whistle there is. Whenever I see a clip of his show, I always find it appalling to see just how thoroughly he’s radicalized himself. Well, no more. Fox News fired his ass one week after they settled with Dominion Voting Systems.

Fox News said Monday that it was parting ways with Tucker Carlson, its most popular prime time host who was also the source of repeated controversies and headaches for the network because of his statements on everything from race relations to L.G.B.T.Q. rights.

The network made the announcement less than a week after it agreed to pay $787.5 million in a defamation lawsuit in which Mr. Carlson’s show, one of the highest rated on Fox, figured prominently for its role in spreading misinformation after the 2020 election. In making its announcement, Fox offered a terse statement of gratitude. “Fox News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways. We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor,” it said.

His last program was on Friday, Fox said.

Mr. Carlson is also facing a lawsuit from a former Fox News producer, Abby Grossberg, who claims that he presided over a misogynistic and discriminatory workplace culture. Ms. Grossberg said in the lawsuit, which was filed in March, that on her first day working for Mr. Carlson, she discovered the work space was decorated with large pictures of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wearing a swimsuit. Fox has disputed Ms. Grossberg’s claims. A spokeswoman said in a recent statement: “We will continue to vigorously defend Fox against Ms. Grossberg’s unmeritorious legal claims, which are riddled with false allegations against Fox and our employees.”

[From The NY Times]

While this was the official statement, that Carlson and Fox News “agreed to part ways,” Fox News sources immediately began calling up their media colleagues and spilling the tea. A source told Mediaite that Carlson was absolutely fired and it happened very suddenly: “He was totally surprised. He had no idea. It was a firing. He was informed” on Monday. Semafor reports that Carlson’s executive producer Justin Wells was also sh-tcanned at the same time. The whole thing is, according to Semafor’s sources, “just classic Murdoch assassination — you’re their closest friend, their favorite child and now you’re dead.”

My guess is that this is about the Dominion Voting lawsuit and settlement more than the discriminatory workplace lawsuit, although that Grossberg lawsuit probably made it much easier for Fox News to pull the plug. If Carlson and his bros were only being sexist douchebags to the handful of women on staff, Fox News would have shrugged and said “and?” But the fact that Carlson was overzealously selling election conspiracies, conspiracies which cost the Murdochs over $700 million to settle? Yeah. That being said, the Murdochs were fine with Tucker Carlson doing all of that in the wake of the 2020 election. It was practically a company-wide policy to disseminate election fraud conspiracies.

I can’t wait to hear the Murdoch family leak about who pulled the plug on Carlson. That recent Vanity Fair cover story made it sound like Rupert Murdoch lost the plot in 2020, and no one in his orbit understands why he was signing off on the election conspiracies.

Here was the end of what turned out to be Tucker Carlson’s final Fox News show last Friday. Certainly no indication that he didn’t expect to be on the air tonight. In fact Tucker’s final words are, “we’ll be back on Monday.” pic.twitter.com/F9R5MpWHDK

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 24, 2023

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Of all the major news-anchor dramas in recent years, the Don Lemon stuff was so uninteresting to me. Lemon was a longtime CNN anchor and their morning show co-host. He should have been fired years ago for his on-and-off-camera behavior, including so many ageist and sexist comments on-air and a culture of harassment, sexism and just “bad behavior” off-camera, mostly with his staff. I have no idea why CNN didn’t pull the plug on Lemon before now, but here we are. Just a few months ago, Lemon stepped in sh-t yet again when he said, on air, that Nikki Haley isn’t a viable candidate because, as a 51 year old woman, she’s not “in her prime.” It would be weird if that was the breaking point, but it looks like it was. Lemon got sh-tcanned from CNN on Monday, seemingly within minutes of Fox News firing Tucker Carlson.

CNN has parted ways with longtime host Don Lemon. The announcement Monday came without explanation and astonished the media industry.

“Don will forever be a part of the CNN family, and we thank him for his contributions over the past 17 years,” said CNN CEO Chris Licht in a memo to staff. “We wish him well and will be cheering him on in his future endeavors.”

Lemon anchored “CNN This Morning” with Poppy Harlow and Kaitlan Collins. The show has been on the air for nearly six months.

“We are committed to its success,” Licht said of the morning show.

In a statement of his own, Lemon said his agent told him Monday morning that CNN had terminated him.

“I am stunned,” Lemon said, arguing that management did not have “the decency” to inform him of his firing directly. “At no time was I ever given any indication that I would not be able to continue to do the work I have loved at the network,” Lemon added

CNN rebutted Lemon, calling his version of events “inaccurate.”

“He was offered an opportunity to meet with management but instead released a statement on Twitter,” the network said in a statement.

[From CNN]

Ah, the post-firing back-and-forth about who informed whom and when and how. Lemon’s tenure at CNN was messy as f–k, so of course his firing is too. And of course he has the audacity to be “stunned” about it too. Weirdly, Lemon posted a message on Twitter and people can’t understand where it comes from. Word? Notes? Someone suggested that he took a screenshot of an email? Why is the font so big? Why is it blue-lavender?

pic.twitter.com/8PyLqvS0d7

— Don Lemon (@donlemon) April 24, 2023

MORE on Don Lemon exit, which Lemon is calling a termination:

Some guests were reluctant to appear on-air with Lemon, per CNN bookers. Network research found that audience sentiment on Lemon had dipped following his Nikki Haley controversy. https://t.co/vDVCn2zZ4Y

— Michael M. Grynbaum (@grynbaum) April 24, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Melanie Lynskey was a guest on Josh Horowitz’s Happy Sad Confused podcast promoting season two of Yellowjackets. The season is being well received by critics but people watching it are split. I have all but given up on it. It feels like Melanie is the only one promoting it, which is rough for me because her character is the main reason I am over this season. Not her, she’s doing a great job with what she has, but I hate what Shauna is doing, both past and present. Anyway, the show is all about friendships – for better or worse – and while Melanie was chatting with Josh, she told him she never got over the loss of her friendship with Kate Winslet, with whom she filmed Heavenly Creatures. Not that they aren’t friends, but after Kate rocketed to fame, there was less time for each other, which Melanie found heartbreaking. So heartbreaking, she’s hardened her heart when it comes to other actors as friends in general.

Melanie Lynskey is opening up about drifting apart from her once-close friend and Heavenly Creatures co-star Kate Winslet.

While speaking with Josh Horowitz on the Happy Sad Confused podcast Thursday about the nature of the industry and how people “move on” following projects, the Yellowjackets actress explained that “When I lost touch with Kate, it was more heartbreaking than some breakups that I’ve had.

“It was so painful because it wasn’t like anything happened, it’s just she became a gigantic international movie star and she didn’t have a lot of time,” she added. “I wouldn’t hear from her, you know, and it just sort of like gradually happened, and it happens in relationships. People kind of drift apart, but it was so painful for me.”
¬
They both have gone on to amass successful careers since their 1994 film, but the Intervention actress explained that her and Winslet’s friendship wasn’t the only one that hit her hard. Lynskey said that it actually “happened a couple of times.”

“I remember one time I did a movie with this actor and when we were finished I said, ‘Oh, my gosh, I’m just so happy that I met you and we have this friendship,’ and she was like, ‘Yeah, I’m not friends with actors. I don’t stay friends with actors.’”

While she used to be “so sensitive” about losing relationships in the industry, over time, she learned that was just how it worked. She added, “I was always so injured by losing these, like, great loves I was having and it got easier.”

[The Hollywood Reporter]

It’s interesting to hear Melanie say this out loud. I always think the public is more invested in Hollywood friendships than those in them. There are certain people we need to be best buddies and they play those friendships up during promotions. But it would be a very difficult industry to keep a relationship, as Melanie describes. The job takes actors all over the world for months at a time. And when they aren’t working, they need to make time for family or promotion. I understand why Kate would have been such a painful loss for Melanie, though. Not only has Melanie discussed how much she looked up to Kate, but Heavenly Creatures was Melanie’s first film. It was such a pivotal point in her life, and they became fast friends when they were still so green in the industry. I remember reading they became close with each other’s families as well so I’ll bet losing touch stung.

Of course, Kate’s career took off after Creatures and Melanie was sent home from the film’s promotional junket by Harvey Weinstein. And they lived on separate continents, so odds were stacked against them staying in touch. People like Melissa McCarthy and Octavia Spencer were roommates before they made it big and lived in the same area, they worked at staying friends. I think they are the exception, though, Like Gayle King and Oprah. People who really carve out time together. I think many actors are excited to see each other when they can but in reality, most friendships, like Melanie said, are only going to be sustainable for the length of the film.

Photo credit: Cover Images, Avalon.red and Getty

Brad Pitt will race Lewis Hamilton at the British Grand Prix (as part of that stupid F1 movie Brad is making). [Just Jared]
This vet’s technique for getting a cat to throw up is so funny. [Dlisted]
Yara Shahidi in a gold gown. [Go Fug Yourself]
Review of AppleTV’s Ghosted. [LaineyGossip]
Did Roy & Keeley really need that storyline on Ted Lasso? [Pajiba]
A compilation of cats sitting on glass table tops. [OMG Blog]
Mike Pence doesn’t want women to have access to abortion medication. [Jezebel]
Kendall Jenner & Hailey Bieber spent time in a kitchen. [Egotastic]
True crime cases with unexpected twists. [Buzzfeed]
Bel Powley wore Philosophy di Lorenzo. [RCFA]
Eric Braeden has cancer. [Seriously OMG]
Kim Kardashian went to an Usher concert. [Towleroad]

Prince Louis of Wales turned five years old on Sunday, April 23rd. For some reason, I always forget that he has an April birthday – it feels like he has a May birthday, alongside his sister Charlotte. Charlotte and Louis have the same sign, are Tauruses. Prince George is a Cancer (just on the cusp of Leo), and Prince William is a Gemini, just on the cusp of Cancer. Sorry for that zodiac conversation, I only just realized that both Charlotte and Louis fell under the sign of Taurus. There’s a lot going on in that family astrologically. Kate is a Capricorn. I’d love a deeper dive into how their signs play out within the family.

Anyway, to celebrate Louis’s birthday, Kensington Palace released new birthday portraits. Traditionally, the Princess of Wales takes her kids’ birthday photos herself and the pics are usually okay – Kate’s not a great photographer, but I don’t judge her for wanting to do her kids’ photos herself. This year, however, Kate hired photographer Millie Pilkington to do Louis’s photos. I looked at Pilkington’s Instagram – she mainly does portraits of kids and domestic settings. I’m surprised that Kate branched out like this – usually, if she hires a photographer, it’s one of the Rota photographers with some connection to her office. I wonder if she simply heard about Pilkington or looked through the woman’s Instagram.

I also find it strange that Kate is in one of Louis’s birthday photos. I wonder what that’s about? Why do we need to see her wiglet again?? I can f–king see it too. In any case, Louis looks cute. I’ve always thought that all three kids take after the Middleton side of the family more than the Windsor side, but Louis is the one who got Kate’s whole face.

Photos courtesy of Millie Pilkington for Kensington Palace.

The thing about Andrew Parker Bowles and Camilla’s marriage was that it always suited them just fine, and their arrangement was perfectly acceptable within the aristocracy AND the royal family. Andrew cheated on Camilla, Camilla cheated on Andrew, and they were both fine with it and relatively discreet about it. It was Charles and Diana’s marriage troubles which put the spotlight on the Parker-Bowles situation. Anyway, Andrew and now Queen Consort Camilla are still quite close. He even steps in for her and makes appearances on her behalf. He was invited to Charles and Camilla’s wedding and he was reportedly quite jolly about his ex-wife’s situation. And now Andrew Parker Bowles is going to the coronation.

“Being divorced, I don’t think you can have it both ways.” So said the Duchess of York last week, explaining why she is not invited to the coronation on May 6. One man, however, can and will have it both ways. Andrew Parker Bowles, Camilla’s former husband, will be front and centre of the congregation at Westminster Abbey watching his first wife crowned alongside King Charles, while his grandchildren take centre stage with official roles in the ceremony.

Camilla, 75, and Parker Bowles, 83, divorced in 1995 after 22 years of marriage but remain the closest of friends, seeing each other regularly. They have two children — Tom Parker Bowles, 48, a food writer, restaurant critic and the King’s godson; and Laura Lopes, 45, a gallerist — and five grandchildren. Tom’s son, Freddy, 13, and Laura’s twin sons, Gus and Louis, also 13, will be Camilla’s pages of honour at the coronation, carrying the train of her robes.

A friend of Parker Bowles’s said of his enduring relationship with the Queen: “They are joined at the hip. He arranges so much for her. They have lunch together the whole time. He’s right in there. He was always, and still is, Camilla’s co-conspirator.”

Friends politely describe Parker Bowles, who was unfaithful to Camilla during their courtship and marriage, as “a bit of a rogue” and “very naughty with women”. It has often been suggested that he was one of the inspirations for Rupert Campbell-Black, the central character in several of Jilly Cooper’s bonkbuster books.

Known as “the Brigadier” among friends and in royal circles, Parker Bowles, a retired army officer who served with the Blues and Royals, part of the Household Cavalry, has moved in royal circles for decades. Before his marriage to Camilla in 1973, he had a romance with Princess Anne. They remain close friends and are often spotted together at Royal Ascot.

[From The Times]

It’s true about Andrew and Anne – they’re also quite close, still, to this day. There are tons of photos of Andrew and Anne together at horse events, chatting away and flirting with each other (and her husband is suspiciously never around those events). The point, I suppose, is that Andrew isn’t simply close to his ex-wife – he’s close to many within the extended Windsor clan. He’s always been part of that circle. He never sold out Camilla, even though Cam’s PR has been working overtime to emphasize the fact that Andrew cheated on her constantly. Like she wasn’t banging a whole-ass heir to the throne throughout her first marriage. Still, Andrew has a good life and he’s not going to mess it up by giving some tell-all interview. So his reward is seeing his ex-wife crowned in person. Now, do I also think it’s tacky that the coronation is all about Camilla’s “victory lap” and it’s entirely a Parker-Bowles affair? Sure, that too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Prince William’s “friends” love to gossip with the Daily Beast’s Royalist column. Over the past year especially, Royalist has run a number of exclusives sourced from “a close friend of William,” and all of those exclusives have been about how much William hates the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and how the brothers never speak. There’s always a curious subtext too, which is that William is paying obsessive attention to what the Sussexes are doing and William always, unfailingly, has opinions on what they’re doing. William claims to despise his brother – perhaps, for William’s own mental health, he should simply ignore Harry’s comings and goings instead of stalking him? But what do I know. Anyhoodle, William thinks Harry’s brief coronation visit is a “massive diss” to their father.

The brevity of Prince Harry’s forthcoming trip to the U.K. to attend his father’s coronation is a “massive diss” to his family, a close friend of Prince William’s has told The Daily Beast. And with rumors now circulating that Harry could fly in and out of the country in such short order that he spends less than 24 hours in the land of his birth, opinion is divided as to whether the effect of his appearance will be to bolster a sense of unity or reinforce the narrative of division that has beset the royals in recent years.

“If he comes for less than 24 hours, it’s a massive diss really,” said the longtime close friend of William’s. “You know, ‘Tell us how you really feel, Harry.’”

The friend said that relations between the two brothers were “so bad they are nonexistent” but that William would likely be happy for his father that Harry was attending the coronation.

“William’s official position is that he supports his father because he is the king and it’s his coronation,” the friend said.

While Charles is said to be relieved by the issue finally being settled, there seems to be an increasingly clear divide between William’s ongoing hostility to his brother and Charles’ apparent willingness to continue to try to build bridges. A friend of the king, for example, gave The Daily Beast a very different perspective on Harry’s non-attendance to that given by William’s friend, saying: “Of course Charles is delighted Harry will be there. He has always made it very clear he loves both his sons and wanted Harry to be there. He completely understands it is going to be a quick trip.”

[From The Daily Beast]

Again, William needs to get a f–king grip and so do his friends. Harry’s appearance at the coronation was clearly negotiated between father and son, and really, it’s just an issue between the two of them. Harry is coming for his father on Charles’s big hat day, the end. What William and his friends don’t want to admit is that Charles managed to get the exact situation he wanted: Harry putting in an appearance at the coronation and no Meghan and no Archie or Lili. That was the whole reason for the palace leaks for months and months, to get this exact result. So no, it’s not a diss. But it’s not a capitulation either – Harry and Charles spoke and that’s something (for Harry, who still dearly loves his father). All this tells me is that William is mad as a hornet that Charles and Harry still care about each other enough to negotiate this together.

Note by Celebitchy: Get the top 8 stories about Prince Harry going to the coronation when you sign up for our mailing list! I only send one email a day on weekdays which I personally write.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

The Princess of Wales did a “surprise” event today in Windsor, just a short distance from the Royal Windsor Estate, which is where Kate lives in Adelaide Cottage. For now. These Windsor “events” always reek of last-minute busywork from William and Kate – they also did a surprise visit to a local Windsor food bank. And much like that food bank visit, Kate showed up empty handed to today’s visit to a local baby bank.

Kate has done some appearances at baby banks before. These baby banks provide clothes, diapers and other essentials to parents with babies or small children. Kate has three kids – surely she has some old kids’ clothes which she could have donated? Surely she could have made a quick stop at a grocery store to load up on diapers to donate? Of course not. Kate was merely there for the photo-op, to inspire others to donate, I guess. That’s why Kensington Palace didn’t put any information about the visit – or information about where and how to donate – on their social media accounts as of this writing, which is more than an hour after her visit. Not even an Instagram Story. It’s not even the bare minimum. Update: the KP team did eventually post about the visit on their socials. They even tagged the baby bank… in the third tweet.

Kate’s outfit looks familiar because we’ve seen her wear versions of this before, soon after she saw Meghan pair black trousers with an off-white blazer. Meghan looked like she was wearing a smart suit with a feminine twist. Kate looks like a 41-year-old wearing a cheap costume to approximate something she saw on Meghan.

Note by Celebitchy: Get the top 10 stories about William and Kate showing up empty-handed when you sign up for our mailing list! I only send one email a day on weekdays which I personally write.

Families in need throughout the area can rely on The Baby Bank here in Windsor, providing everything from new-born starter kits to buggies, beds & blankets. pic.twitter.com/WSRCrRjw5O

— The Prince and Princess of Wales (@KensingtonRoyal) April 24, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

In the 2021 Oprah interview, the Duchess of Sussex repeatedly stated that she had written letters and emails to various people within the British monarchy. These people, from QEII to Charles to William and Kate and all of their staffers, had a good idea what was going on with Meghan in 2018-19 because she was telling them and leaving a written record. There has been precious little follow-up on all of the receipts Meghan left behind when she and Harry fled that island. Well, after Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview aired, it looks like Charles wrote to Meghan to express his disappointment with her for… speaking publicly about how poorly she was treated. Not only that, but Meghan wrote a letter to Charles in response. We know this because *someone* leaked the existence of those two letters to the Telegraph. Some highlights:

The Duchess of Sussex expressed her concerns about unconscious bias in the Royal family in a letter to the King, The Telegraph can reveal. It is understood that the correspondence was sent in the wake of the March 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview, in which the Duchess alleged that a member of the Royal family had speculated about the colour of her unborn son’s skin. A source has said that the Duchess feels she has not received a satisfactory response to her concerns.

It is understood that her letter was sent in reply to one from the King. He is believed to be the only senior member of the family to make contact with the Duchess after the interview. Then Prince of Wales, he is understood to have expressed sadness over the chasm that had emerged between the two sides of the Royal family. He is said to be disappointed that the Duke and Duchess felt the need to make such high-profile and damaging allegations.

In the interview, the Duchess told Winfrey that there had been “concerns and conversations about how dark his [Archie’s] skin might be when he’s born”.

A source claimed that the letters make clear the identity of the senior member of the family who made the comment. It is understood that both the King and the Duchess acknowledged that the individual’s remark was not made with malice.

The Duchess is believed to have thanked the King for his words. The Duchess’s letter is also said to suggest that she had never intended to specifically accuse the individual involved of being a racist, but was raising concerns about unconscious bias. One royal source suggested that while the exchange was warm in tone, it had not eased the tension between the two sides.

The Duchess is understood to feel that concerns she has raised, which crucially include the way in which bullying complaints against her were handled and the allegation that neglect by the institution led her to feel suicidal, have still not been resolved.

Royal sources indicated that they had never expected the Duchess to fly over for the [coronation], aware that her private correspondence with the King had not been enough to prevent further mud-slinging from the Sussexes.

The Palace is also aware of the Sussexes’ frustration that initial email correspondence about the Coronation made no reference to their children and their potential involvement. The omission only fuelled their feeling that their family plays second fiddle to the Waleses.

[From The Telegraph]

First off, it looks like recollections did NOT vary after all. They all knew who said what and there were open conversations within the family about everything Meghan and Harry discussed in the Oprah interview. Secondly, the Telegraph removed a very telling line from the original report. After the sentence “The Duchess’s letter is also said to suggest that she had never intended to specifically accuse the individual involved of being a racist, but was raising concerns about unconscious bias,” the original article then had this line: “However, it is understood that she does still consider the comment to be racist.” That was removed after several hours, likely following a call from Buckingham Palace, which was the source of this piece. I’m not sure what game Charles, Camilla and their courtiers are playing, but my guess is that C&C wanted to shout “not it” ahead of the coronation, specifically about the “royal racist” question.

In any case, this is the palace-sanctioned version of BOTH letters. They probably expected Meghan to say something about Charles’s letter at some point in an interview or on the Netflix series, but she didn’t. She kept it private for two years before BP leaked it. Hilariously – or less so – there were some busy little palace bees working on a Friday evening after the Telegraph’s exclusive came out. Suddenly, all of the royal reporters were parroting the same talking point, which was that Meghan leaked the existence and content of both letters. To the Telegraph? LOL, no. IF Meghan wanted to leak something, I trust that her contacts in the American media are much more likely to get the info. Now, who issued the “Meghan leaked it” talking point? I think it came from Buckingham Palace as well, but others believe it came from Kensington Palace, especially since the content of the letters would seem to suggest that either William or Kate was saying sh-t about a Sussex baby’s skin color. Valentine Low, Richard Palmer, Emily Andrews all tweeted out almost identical “Meghan leaked it” tweets within an hour of each other.

On Saturday, the Sussexes’ spokesperson issued this statement, below. Valentine Low also tweeted that the Sussexes’ lawyers and the palace’s lawyers have sent legal notices around. Huh. My theory? Harry called the palace and said “if you don’t clean up your own f–king mess, I’m not coming and I’m telling everyone why.”

Given that legal letters have been sent by the Sussexes’ lawyers as well as the palace’s since the story was published, it seems I was wrong in assuming that it came from the Sussex camp. Sorry to all about that. But even more intriguing!

— Valentine Low (@valentinelow) April 22, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar, WENN.

I’ve always loved Djimon Hounsou. He’s an actor who does a lot with his smaller roles, and the two which always stuck with me were Gladiator and In America. He was Oscar-nominated for In America and Blood Diamond (I always thought he should have won for In America). He’s currently promoting Shazam! Fury of the Gods, which appears more and more to be a “good paycheck” for a number of actors who simply needed the work. Djimon was recently interviewed by the Guardian, and he spoke at length about the lack of respect he still gets within the industry and how he’s never really gotten a big paycheck.

Moving to France at the age of 12: “It’s a different environment that taught me so much, but it also ripped me apart. I was extremely lonely. There was nobody I could connect to. You’re in a completely foreign environment, an environment that is seen to not care much for your kind.”

Moving to Paris in his teens: Acting work was hard to come by (“I felt the racism was quite heavy out there back then”). Before long, his student visa had expired. “Not only am I homeless, but I’m also illegal. It was almost impossible to live and to find a job in France at the time. So that’s how I ended up on the streets.”

A chance encounter led him to model for Thierry Mugler. “He immediately saw me and was like: ‘This is who we’re looking for. This is the man.’” It was an alien, stressful environment. Mugler’s assistant took pictures of Hounsou in different outfits, including some leather underwear. Did he feel uncomfortable? “Oh, for sure, I was very uncomfortable and not sure if this was a disservice to my manhood. But at the same time, certainly, Thierry Mugler could feel I was very timid about this setting and was a gentleman who put me at ease.”

Moving to LA: “I certainly didn’t feel like I belonged in that [fashion] world,” he says. So, at 22, he moved to Los Angeles, despite his limited English. “All I knew how to say was: yes, hello, good morning, thank you, yes sir,” he says. A visiting friend mocked his Hollywood ambitions. “‘Acting? But you realise you don’t speak the language?’ For somebody else to point it out was like a slap in my face. I was so hurt; from that point on, I refused to tell anybody my dreams.”

Not being Oscar-nominated for Amistad. “Yeah. Maybe I was early. If my movies had come out today I definitely would have gotten an Oscar already.”

His supporting-actor nomination for Blood Diamond in 2006: “I felt seriously cheated. Today, we talk so much about the Oscars being so white, but I remember there was a time where I had no support at all: no support from my own people, no support from the media, from the industry itself. It felt like: ‘You should be happy that you’ve got nominated,’ and that’s that.”

Whether he still finds the industry limiting: “I’m still struggling to try to make a dollar! I’ve come up in the business with some people who are absolutely well off and have very little of my accolades. So I feel cheated, tremendously cheated, in terms of finances and in terms of the workload as well. I’ve gone to studios for meetings and they’re like: ‘Wow, we felt like you just got off the boat and then went back [after Amistad]. We didn’t know you were here as a true actor.’ When you hear things like that, you can see that some people’s vision of you, or what you represent, is very limiting. But it is what it is. It’s up to me to redeem that.”

He still has to take smaller roles: He does it to assert himself as a “man of today” and “to prove that I can speak the language. I may not speak perfectly like an American with an American accent, but I don’t need to be all-American… I still have to prove why I need to get paid. They always come at me with a complete low ball: ‘We only have this much for the role, but we love you so much and we really think you can bring so much.’ Viola Davis said it beautifully: she’s won an Oscar, she’s won an Emmy, she’s won a Tony and she still can’t get paid. [She added a Grammy in February.] Film after film, it’s a struggle. I have yet to meet the film that paid me fairly.”

[From The Guardian]

This is so painful, and it reminds me of Ke Huy Quan’s story too, the sudden shooting stardom and then a whole lot of silence, a lot of blank looks on auditions, not a lot of respect for what these immigrant actors who have already shown what they can do. Seriously, go back and watch In America – it’s a shame he didn’t win for that film, and it really was a brilliant showcase for his talent. It’s about race too and what kinds of immigrants are given work in Hollywood. Anyway, I came out of this interview so depressed. He’s so talented and I hope this interview wakes up some directors to cast him! He also hopes he can return for the second Gladiator movie and I hope he gets that.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.