The Neanderthal Post

Survival of the Blog

Angelina Jolie: Fidelity Isn’t Essential

via Huffington Post

If the illustrious Telegraph’s translation is to be believed, Angelina Jolie isn’t tied to the idea of fidelity.

Jolie gave an interview to Das Neue in which she said:

“I doubt that fidelity is absolutely essential for a relationship. It’s worse to leave your partner and talk badly about him afterwards.

“Neither Brad nor I have ever claimed that living together means to be chained together. We make sure that we never restrict each other.”

She added, “The sparks fly at home if the nice Brad fails to see that he’s wrong and reacts in a defiant way. Then I can get so angry that I tear his shirt.”

Jolie and Brad Pitt have been together over four years and were in New York earlier Christmas week with their kids.

December 27, 2009 Posted by | Celebs, Dating/Sex | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Why Indie Directors Give Movies Away Free Online

By Monisha Rajesh

When Finnish filmmaker Timo Vuorensola came up with the idea for his movie Star Wreck, a parody of Star Trek, he knew that looking for conventional distribution would be futile. An amateur, science-fiction comedy with a miniscule budget — and in Finnish, to boot — would hardly be attractive to mainstream studios. So Vuorensola took matters into his own hands: he used a Finnish social networking site to build up an online fan base who contributed to the storyline, made props and even offered their acting skills. In return for the help, Vuorensola released Star Wreck in 2005 online for free. Seven hundred thousand copies were downloaded in the first week alone; to date, the total has now reached 9 million.

“Releasing it for free is just good marketing,” he says. “Whether it’s through piracy or distribution your film is out there on the Internet, so we decided to harness this.” And he has managed to make quite a bit of money out of it. Online sales of merchandise — including T-shirts and collector’s editions of the DVD — have generated $430,000 on a film that only cost $21,500 to make, Vuorensola says. He and his team have also now secured a proper distribution deal with Revolver Entertainment in the U.S. and Britain. (See the best movies of 2009.)

In the age of YouTube and viral marketing campaigns, it was only a matter of time before independent filmmakers came to realize that cutting the middleman out of the process is sometimes the best way to guarantee large audiences see their works. This is especially true at a time when funding from studios has been seriously hit by the recession — just as it was on the way up. “The last 10 years has been a renaissance period for independent filmmaking and there has been more money coming into production for films than in any other decade in the history of film,” says Jonathan Wolf, managing director of the American Film Market, an annual event where filmmakers and studio executives converge to sign production and distribution deals. But since the economic downturn, many indie movie distributors, including New Line Cinema, Miramax, the Weinstein Company and Paramount Vantage, have either left the market or slashed their funding.

Like Vuorensola, American animator Nina Paley ignored traditional distribution methods and released her film, Sita Sings the Blues, a comic adaptation of the Hindu epic, The Ramayana, directly online earlier this year. She first created a blog,, to develop a community of supporters, and then posted the film on another site,, for free. It was an instant success. “I have my blog, but I essentially gave the film to the audience and they ran with it,” Paley says. “It wasn’t self-distribution, it was audience distribution.” (See the best blogs of the year.)

Paley also sells merchandise on her site, including 35mm prints of the film stamped with a Creative Commons License, so the buyers know the money is going directly to the filmmaker. And she has a donation link through which she has received gifts ranging from $2 to $2,000. To date, Paley has made net profits of $55,000 — and she’s secured theatrical distribution in France and the U.S. “What I have learned is that the more freely you show the film, the more audiences will buy the DVD and surrounding merchandise,” she says. “With a normal theatrical release you have to spend so much money on advertising and promotion that most independent films lose money.”

Even some mainstream filmmakers are starting to use online distribution to build buzz about their projects or simply to get their films to as many people as possible. Last year, Michael Moore released Slacker Uprising — a documentary about his attempts to have President George W. Bush removed from office in the run-up to the 2004 election — online for free in the U.S and Canada to encourage young people to vote. And in May, documentary filmmaker Franny Armstrong launched a website called, where people can buy a license and then screen her climate-change documentary, The Age of Stupid. Armstrong incentivizes buyers by allowing them to keep any profits from ticket sales. She can’t guarantee that her film won’t be copied and shared after someone purchases a license to screen it, but she says she had to put her trust in people to spread the word about climate change. (See TIME’s coverage of the Copenhagen climate-change conference.)

Liz Rosenthal, founder of Power to the Pixel, an organization that devises new models of film distribution, says the reason many indie directors are turning to the web is that it allows them to better engage with their audiences. “The whole film business has no connection with their audience,” she says. “And with any business you have to know your consumer. The Internet has become a free distribution machine, so what can you sell that makes money? Things you can’t copy. They need to be things that are based around your audience. Directors cuts, merchandise, 35mm prints of your film.” (Read: “Why Netflix Stinks: A Critic’s Complaint.”)

Soon, the middleman could be a thing of the past. And it may only be a matter of time before movie theatres — popcorn and all — are on the way out, too.

December 26, 2009 Posted by | Art/Culture, Movies, News | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Don’t Panic


This guy in Uruguay named Fede Alvarez posted this 4 minute and 48 second video on YouTube called Ataque de Panico (Panic Attack). He claims that he made this short film with only $300. Within three days of posting it onto YouTube he was getting calls from Hollywood studios and eventually signed a $30 million film deal sponsored by Sam Raimi, the director of Spiderman. The moral of the story: Don’t panic. If you are good enough at what you do, success will find you.

December 26, 2009 Posted by | Art/Culture, Movies | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

4 Things to Never Joke About With Your Man

By Chris Connolly

For most guys, a kick-ass sense of humor in a woman ranks right up there with a nice rack. And though we pride ourselves on being able to take ribbing as well as we dish it out, some material is just no laughing matter to us. Consider the following subjects unsuitable comic fodder.

His Future Hair Loss

With the exception of Hollywood types like Vin Diesel, most guys with shiny chrome domes are not deemed the sexiest man alive. That’s why many guys stress about potential future loss. And if there’s even a hint of thinning, it’s certain to be a really sore subject. “I once had a date joke that I better grab a hat because it was chilly outside and she didn’t want my scalp to catch a cold,” says Rich*, 30. “Look I know my lid is starting to look a little lean, but I don’t need a woman reminding me…even if it’s in jest.”

His Paltry Payback

Yes, it’s a little Stone Age, but we men consider it our manly obligation to bring home the bacon. When our salary doesn’t stack up, we feel totally emasculated. It’s like we measure our worth in a relationship to our wallet (or at least we think you do). So you can see why kidding around about your sugar-mama status isn’t exactly our idea of stand-up. “I know it’s wrong, but I’m embarrassed that my girlfriend outearns me,” admits Andrew, 28. “She once made a quip about letting me stay home Mr.Mom -style while she supported us, and I lost it. We’ve since come to an understanding that until I hit the lottery or open my own restaurant, money is something that can’t be taken lightly.” Bottom line: It’s not that we don’t appreciate your alpha-female status. We just don’t want to be your beta boy toy.

His Mom

It’s a rule that dates back to the playgroud: Once you start dissing a boy’s mother, things are going to get ugly. Sure, he’s allowed to goof on her Hawaiian muumuus, burned Bundt cake, and obsession with Richard Simmons, but when you chime in, it’s a different story. “I love my mom to death. She’s a total character,” says Josh, 30. “I bust on her nonstop, and she gives it right back to me. But if my girlfriend added her two cents, I’d find it totally disrespectful.” Bonus tip: Sisters are untouchable too.

His Member

In a nutshell, keep Johnson jokes to yourself—especially if you ever want his penis to come out to play again. Our “boys” are serious business. There’s nothing comedic about commentary on any of the following: size (or more accurately, lack thereof), shape, and color. Just ask Bill, 26: “I’m sensitive about the fact that my package is a shade darker than the rest of my flesh. I was once with a girl who took one look, giggled, and named him the Dark Horse. It made me so self-conscious that I couldn’t perform.” Your best bet? Stay mute about his member…unless you feel compelled to characterize it as monstrous.

*Names have been changed.

December 26, 2009 Posted by | Dating/Sex, Love | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why We Kiss: The Science of Sex

By: Brie Cadman

Pecking, smooching, Frenching, and playing tonsil-hockey—there are as many names for kissing as there are ways to do it. Whether we use it as an informal greeting or an intensely romantic gesture, kissing is one of those ingrained human behaviors that seems to defy explanation. Its many purposes—a blow and peck for good luck on dice, lips to ground after a rocky boat ride, kisses in the air to an acquaintance, and the long slow smooches of Hollywood—have different meanings yet are similar in nature. So why is it that we love to pucker up?

A Kiss Isn’t Just a Kiss
Philematologists, the scientists who study kissing, aren’t exactly sure why humans started locking lips in the first place. The most likely theory is that it stems from primate mothers passing along chewed food to their toothless babies. The lip-to-lip contact may have been passed on through evolution, not only as a necessary means of survival, but also as a general way to promote social bonding and as an expression of love.

But something’s obviously happened to kissing since the time of the chewed-food pass. Now, it’s believed that kissing helps transfer critical information, rather than just meat bits. The kissing we associate with romantic courtship may help us to choose a good mate, send chemical signals, and foster long-term relationships. All of this is important in evolution’s ultimate goal—successful procreation. 

Kissing allows us to get close enough to a mate to assess essential characteristics about them, none of which we’re consciously processing. Part of this information exchange is most likely facilitated by pheromones, chemical signals that are passed between animals to help send messages. We know that animals use pheromones to alert their peers of things like mating, food sources, and danger, and researchers hypothesize that pheromones can play a role in human behavior as well. Although the vomeronasal organs, which are responsible for pheromone detection and brain function in animals, are thought to be vestigial and inactive in humans, research indicates we do communicate with chemicals.    Continue reading…

December 20, 2009 Posted by | Dating/Sex, Love | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are You Becoming Barack Obama?

By Simon Dumenco

 A mustachioed Teddy Roosevelt astride his galloping horse. JFK with wind-ruffled hair and Wayfarers. Ronald Reagan in Brylcreem and black tie. When it comes to representing American masculinity, Hollywood’s got nothing on the White House. The celebrity-industrial complex does its best to advance certain sorts of manly ideals—think Clint Eastwood and George Clooney—but movie stars, subject as they are to fickle studio marketing budgets, fade in and out of view. Whereas the president dominates the news, and our collective consciousness, every damn day for four or eight years running.The chief executive’s behavior sets the tone for what it is to be a boss, a father, and a husband, as well as a leader—though not always for the better. For every Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan, there’s a sweaty control freak (Nixon) or a mealymouthed milquetoast in a cardigan (Carter). Among our recent, younger, theoretically more relatable presidents, Bill Clinton, the feels-your-pain empath (enthusiast of McDonald’s and other oral treats), didn’t exactly inspire men to greater heights. And George W., the biz-school frat guy, forever mispronouncing big words and flunking big tests, lowered the bar with a self-satisfied smirk.

Then, in 2008, the country voted for change—in an election that was essentially a referendum on guyhood. Obama had a famously thin résumé, so it came down to this: calm, cerebral young black dude or cranky, hotheaded old white guy.  The nation spoke loud and clear, but did we—or at least the 54 percent of the electorate that didn’t vote for John McCain—really mean to vote for the Obamafication of the American male? We watch the occupant of the Oval Office more than any other living male, and yet the effect he has on our notions of manhood, our sense of ourselves as American men, largely escapes attention.

In Obama’s case, sometimes he lives up to the male ideal and sometimes he doesn’t (let’s overlook those boxy, too-wide-in-the-shoulder suits and his dorky dad jeans, shall we?). But it might not matter all that much, because in voting for a radically different avatar of American masculinity, we were, in a way, voting for Barack Obama to change us. Which is exactly what he’s doing.
For some, it’s what’s not there that matters. Byron Hurt, a New York–area filmmaker who last fall produced a documentary titled Barack & Curtis, sees Obama’s ascent as the rejection of “defiant, in-your-face manhood.” Hurt’s film drew a parallel between George W.’s masculine identity and that of 50 Cent—a.k.a. Curtis Jackson—reminding us that Fitty once admiringly called Dubya “gangsta.” (“I wanna meet George Bush,” he said. “Just shake his hand and tell him how much of me I see in him.”) “Barack Obama doesn’t have to front like he’s hard,” Hurt says. “It’s a deeply secure presentation of masculinity.”  Continue reading…

December 13, 2009 Posted by | Celebs, News | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eight Small Films That Made It Big

Low to no budget isn’t a handicap in making a hugely successful film as the eight movies on this list proves…

My Big Fat Greek Wedding
Often cited as the most profitable independent film of all time, My Big Fat Greek Wedding cost $5m and took nearly $350m worldwide.

Paranormal Activity
On a reported budget of $11,000, the shocking new release is one of the most profitable films of all time, having taken over $100m in America alone.

Another earlier success was Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky which on a budget of $1m made a worldwide total of $225m.

View the rest of the small budget films…

December 13, 2009 Posted by | Celebs, News | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Does Hollywood Hate Our Troops?

This weekend I went to see Brothers, the Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman film about a Marine serving in Afghanistan. While overseas, Sam Cahill’s (Maguire) helicopter is shot down and he is presumed to be dead—which leads his brother (Gyllenhaal) to make a move on his wife (Portman). (Before you continue reading, there are many spoilers ahead.)

I asked my mother if she would come see it with me, but she said she didn’t want to give any money to a movie in which the preview showed the soldier coming back home and waving a gun at his family in their driveway. I have to admit, the preview disturbed me as well, but decided to see the film anyway because I’m always curious about Hollywood’s take on our soldiers and the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, many of these films typically portray our soldiers as deserters—Stop Loss is another classic example of this stereotyping—or complete whackjobs.

In Brothers, not only does one of the Marines captured by the Taliban actually say that he “realized we shouldn’t be there,” but Maguire’s character beats a fellow soldier to death with a lead pipe. Sam then returns home to his family and goes AWOL trying to kill both his wife and his brother. I don’t care if every producer, director, and screenwriter in Hollywood is against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and presumably most are), what offends me is the portrayal of soldiers as cowards and lunatics—driven to such lengths that they come home and try to kill their families. Obviously, post-traumatic stress disorder has become more prevalent in the military and clearly this is a problem that needs to be seriously addressed. But I believe these films add to the damage when they portray soldiers as disloyal, unwilling to serve, and against the missions themselves. In my experience, this couldn’t be further from the truth.   Continue reading the review…

December 8, 2009 Posted by | Celebs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment