Lauren Bacall Killed by Boston Herald

February 13, 2014

(Tip o’ the pixel to the Missus)

Yesterday’s Inside Track in the feisty local tabloid featured an interesting, if out-of-nowhere, profile of local photographer Sid Limitz.

Photographer captures heyday of Theatre District

Forty years ago, when he was just 17, Sid Limitz began working as a ticket taker in Boston’s Theatre District. He was walking past Screen Shot 2014-02-13 at 12.02.58 AMthe old Music Hall one night when Bette Midler came waltzing out the front door.

“I happened to be in the right place at the right time and there she was,” Limitz said. “I thought to myself, ‘This is a moment where someone should have a camera.’”

And so Sid asked for — and got — a camera for Christmas and he’s been taking pictures in the 
Theatre District ever since.

Limitz estimates that he has more than 800,000 shots he snapped in the area around the intersection of Tremont and Stuart streets. In the district’s theaters, comedy clubs, gay bars, concert venues and movie houses, Limitz encountered and photographed legends including Liza MinnelliLauren BacallElaine StritchDavid BowieFrank Zappa and more.

 

And then there was this:

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-12 at 11.44.58 PM

 

Amazingly, in the online edition of Wednesday’s Herald, Bacall is no longer dead.

As a member of the theatrical employees union, Sid worked with Bacall in the Theatre District twice — in 1999 for “Waiting in the Screen Shot 2014-02-12 at 11.45.50 PMWings” at the Colonial and in the ’80s when she did “Love Letters” at The Wilbur with Richard 
Kiley. But his favorite pic of the great actress was snapped outside the Harvard Club in 1980, when 
Bacall came to celebrate the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy’s 50th birthday with the clan.

 

Tell you what – if Bogie were alive now, there’d be hell to pay for this.

P.S. Raise your hand if you thought today’s Herald would run a Correction.

Us neither.

 


‘Would He’ Allen? Herald’s Eagan Says Yes

February 9, 2014

Filmmaker Woodycame to his own defense today. This New York Times piece aims to rebut allegations from last Sunday’s Times that Allen had sexually molested his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow.

Allen writes:

TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was . . .

 

Then again, maybe not. Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan blowtorches Allen in this piece today.

Rebuttal does little for Allen

Better to keep your mouth shut and just appear to be a pedophile than open it and remove all doubt.082003stars3

Or most doubt anyway.

I know, I know. We cannot say with certainty that filmmaker Woody Allen sexually assaulted his then-7-year-old adopted daughter Dylan Farrow two decades ago.

But, in an apparent tit-for-tat against that daughter, Woody Allen doesn’t just open his mouth but shoves his foot right in it. He’s written a loathsome and skin-crawling rebuttal to Dylan Farrow printed in the New York Times, his hometown paper.

 

And etc.

Crosstown, the Boston Globe relegated Allen’s response to a largely nonjudgmental item in the Names column. The hard waiting looks forward to some judgmental action from Globe columnists soon.

Meanwhile, roll your own here.

 

 


WGBH = We’ve Got Bad Habits (Koch Bros. Edition)

February 8, 2014

 

For several months an environmental advocacy outfit called Forecast the Facts has been protesting the presence of conservative billionaire David Koch on WGBH’s board of trustees. There was a flurry of coverage last October, the highlight of which was this contribution from the feisty local tabloid:

 

picture-14

 

Now comes a new skirmish, according to today’s Herald.

Koch foes say ’GBH gave them wrong meeting date

Environmental protesters planning to picket the WGBH board of trustees this week accused the station of slipping them bad David Kochinformation about the date of the meeting — but the PBS affiliate denied it was a secret plot to thwart their campaign.

“Oh, heavens no,” said Channel 2 spokeswoman Jeanne Hopkins. “Of course not. We welcome all comers. We’re open to all.”

 

Uh-huh.

(Full disclosure: The hardreading staff used to toil at the World’s Greatest Broadcast House, but we drifted.)

The protesters say the station forecast the meeting for Thursday but held it on Wednesday. Hopkins told the Herald “the station has no record of giving them the wrong date.” And tossed in this priceless endnote:

“We feel bad,” she said, adding, however, that “one person with a very nice flier” did show up Thursday to protest.

 

See? All it takes is a nice flier.

 


David Ortiz Gets Respect/No Respect from Boston Dailies

February 7, 2014

Fact #1: David Ortiz is unquestionably the greatest clutch hitter in Boston Red Sox history. Fact #2: David Ortiz is 38 years old (at least). Fact #3: David Ortiz will make $15 million this coming season. Fact #4: David Ortiz wants more.

Let the Big Papirama begin!

Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy one week ago.

David Ortiz’s contract talk is selfish, offensive

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-07 at 12.33.00 AM

 

David Ortiz was on Boston television the other night. Guess what he was talking about?

His contract.

Big Papi loves to complain about his contract. He’s never satisfied unless he has a multiyear contract. It’s about respect, I guess.

Sorry, but it’s also tone-deaf, selfish, and offensive.

 

Crosstown at the Boston Herald, Gerry Callahan wrote this:

David Oriz can wait

With Papi destined to stay, Ben should avoid long-term deal

 

110512ortizms04

 

First off, let’s paint the whole picture.

David Ortiz didn’t just demand a contract extension from the Red Sox on “Sports Final” with Steve Burton on Sunday night. He demanded a contract extension while holding a white Chihuahua on his lap. And he didn’t just demand a contract extension while holding a white Chihuahua. He demanded a contract extension while holding a white Chihuahua that was wearing a yellow sweater.

 

Chihua-whatever.

Cut to yesterday’s Christopher L. Gasper Globe column.

Ortiz contract request fair, not foul

 

185963906

 

Ask and you shall receive, or if you’re Red Sox slugger David Ortiz, ask about a contract extension and you shall receive criticism, ridicule, and indignation for daring to ask . . .

Ortiz has drawn the ire of some Red Sox fans and media members [read: fellow Globie Shaughnessy] this winter for having the gall to repeatedly express his desire for a one-year contract extension with a year still remaining on the two-year pact he signed in November of 2012. Ortiz made $15 million last season, and is on the books for another $15 million this season.

Sometimes athletes just can’t win. Failure to express unequivocal desire to stay with a team beyond your current contract brands you disloyal, selfish, and greedy. Expressing a clear preference to stay with a team before your contract is up makes you insolent, selfish, and greedy.

 

You decide, yeah?

 


Herald Again at a DisAdvantage (CVS Smokes-Free Edition)

February 6, 2014

The Boston Herald is a three-time loser in the advertising department today. Once again, the Boston Globe scoops up all the good ads, starting with this one from the new nonsmoking CVS.

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-06 at 10.49.33 AM

 

(The Herald has a news story about the chain’s move, but that’s all.)

Also in the stately local broadsheet, this media culpa from Neiman Marcus:

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-06 at 10.50.36 AM

 

Here’s a slightly more readable version:

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-06 at 10.51.06 AM

 

The hardsquinting staff gets why Neiman’s wouldn’t run that – or any – ad in the Herald. But CVS? What – only smokers read the Herald?

Regardless, this Puffs ad doesn’t soften the blow any either.

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-06 at 10.51.41 AM

 

The feisty local tabloid, no doubt, is reaching for the Kleenex.

 


It’s Ladies Day at the Boston Herald!

February 5, 2014

It’s a regular Galathon at the feisty local tabloid today. Start, appropriately, with Page One.

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-05 at 2.17.58 PM

 

Because the Herald has a new Race for Governor Poll to tout, it splashes the gubernatorial hopefuls across four pages inside (note that Martha Coakley gets the Inexplicable Green 1- good luck?).

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-05 at 2.20.17 PM

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-05 at 2.18.35 PM

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-05 at 2.19.14 PM

 

A few pages later, it’s the other cover gal in the spotlight.

 

Screen Shot 2014-02-05 at 2.19.40 PM

 

Here’s the nut graf:

“This is one of the best days of my life,” [de la Garza] said. “You’re just going to see me in a 
totally new way. Under the news umbrella, I can only really do so much. So it’ll be a little bit more unfiltered. Let’s call it Bianca unanchored.”

 

And here’s video of de la Garza talking about her new Lucky Gal Productions, which will produce the as-yet-unnamed “late-night, personality-driven program [focusing] on Boston’s celebrity, fashion and nightlife scene.”

 

 

It’ll be interesting to see if de la Garza follows the lead of Style Boston, the largely unwatchable show that’s just advertising in TV-magazine drag. She’ll be a Lucky Gal if she can avoid that.

 


Herald Scribes Hand-Wring Over ‘Would He?’ Allen

February 4, 2014

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof kicked off quite a rumpus with his Sunday piece in which Dylan Farrow accused her adoptive father Woody Allen of sexually molesting her when she was seven years old.

Dylan Farrow’s Story

WHEN Woody Allen received a Golden Globe award for lifetime achievement a few weeks ago, there was a lively debate about whether it was appropriate to honor a man who is an artistic giant but also was accused years ago of child molestation.

Allen’s defenders correctly note that he denies the allegations, has never been convicted and should be presumed innocent. People weighed in on all sides, but one person who hasn’t been heard out is Dylan Farrow, 28, the writer and artist whom Allen was accused of molesting.

 

Well, she has been now – Kristof posted this on his blog over the weekend.

An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led dylan-farrow-blog480-v3me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like . . .

 

Compelling stuff, and enough to draw two columns in the Boston Herald today.

First up: Margery Eagan, who calls the allegations “sickening.”

In the days leading up to the Oscars, we’ll likely hear that Dylan is lying, crazy or both. Or we’ll hear the old dodge of critics, that we must separate the 082003stars3man from the art. Many artists — male artists, anyway — are creeps, scoundrels and worse.

But how can we separate Woody Allen’s art from the nauseating, criminal allegations Dylan Farrow first told her mother and police two decades ago? Last night, I tried watching “Annie Hall” again. Whenever Allen appeared, I didn’t see a cinematic genius. I saw a sick, monstrous father in that dim attic with his shattered little girl.

 

Next up: James Verniere, who asks this question:  “Are ‘Annie Hall’ and ‘Blue Jasmine’ any less great if their creator did what Farrow says he did?”

A better question might be, should the Times have run Kristof’s column at all? That’s the one Times public editor Margaret Sullivan asked on her blog yesterday. She doesn’t provide an answer, but she does write this: “I urge those who who have not yet done so to read Robert B. Weide’s illuminating article [in The Daily Beast]. It provides essential context.”

And a good place to start.

UPDATE: Margery Eagan replies, “Better place to start Maureen Orth’s piece — Weide completely underwhelming, plus he big time in woody camp.” Possible tiebreaker: this Guardian piece by Michael Woolf.