Liz Smith: Mila Kunis: She Loves Mashed Potatoes and Funny Guys. She Hates Media Bullies.

 

“I DON’T understand personal salvation. It seems to me a vain idea,” wrote the late playwright Lillian Hellman. 

Hmmm. Something else to ponder. Want to read a really interesting book? Try “A Difficult Woman” by Alice Kessler-Harris, all about the tempestuous Ms. Hellman who fascinated men from Dashiell Hammett to Norman Mailer to Mike Nichols.

MILA KUNIS, the sexy teen who lied about her age to snare a role on “That 70s Show” is all grown up and even sexier now. Why, she drove poor Natalie Portman to madness in “Black Swan.”

Mila is a hot number. She’s on the cover of Glamour magazine. And she has so much to say. She won’t wear lipstick off-screen because it makes her crazy … she loves her mother’s mashed potatoes … she has stopped staying inside for hours playing video games.

Oh, and here’s this. Asked about her possibly intimate friendship with her old “That 70s Show” castmate, Ashton Kutcher, Mila says: “99% of what is in the tabloids is bull …! It’s the biggest form of bullying ever, the paparazzi, printing lies, making accusations. It’s just bullying.”

I can’t disagree, not even when Mila was just seen kissing Ashton, at the wrap party of his latest film.My goodness, they are such old friends. And he’s known her since she was 14. (Although Ashton, like everybody else, thought she was 18.) Anyway, she’s 28 now, and well equipped to handle Mr. Kutcher, the press, and paparazzi bullies. I think she could handle it when she was 14, actually!

Mila also told Glamour that a funny guy will get her quicker than a hot guy. “Funny will get you far. Hot will get you two hours.” Next question — is Ashton funny or hot? And what are the Hollywood definitions of “far” and “two hours.”?

HERE ARE just some of the new rules. Appearing on television — there are two musts. (These aren’t written down anywhere, but now they are!)

First, if you’re a woman you simply must wear a sleeveless dress — rain, shine, sleet, snow. Sleeveless is no longer just for spring, summer and heat waves. In the dead of winter, you see celebrities and TV stars sitting in ice-cold air conditioned studios wearing — sleeveless dresses. Gayle King of “CBS This Morning” is one of the chief ones who “got the message.” In her case, her idol is, of course, First Lady Michelle Obama. 

Forget that Mrs. Obama looks good sleeveless; it doesn’t matter. Most of the rest of the ladies have followed suit. Some of them of certain ages are really something else. (Or they should be somewhere else!)

Second, you must wear high heels. You must teeter onto TV looking as if you are slightly off balance and crippled. Never mind if the podiatrist told you that the reason your feet are killing you is — High Heels! (The higher the more fashionable.)

So, there it is. Today’s TV Rules — a guide for those who may know better; that everyone doesn’t have the upper arms for sleeveless or the bunions and bumps and other pesky problems that don’t fit in
high heels.

Rules for men are more flexible. Nobody looks like what GQ wants males to look like and the sloppier and sillier in TV life, the better. I still like GQ as a guideline and I was recently cheered to see them reminding once again that a dress shirt does not have a button-down collar. The button-down collar is just fine for most occasions, but it’s not really “dressy.” More like collegiate or work-a-day.


Oh yes, I’m a sucker for beautiful male abs and bodies just like everybody else. But what happens when these fabulous perfect Greek gods, let down the exercise? Today, nude women and big breasts are actually kind of boring. It’s men with abs that dominate show business.

OKAY, just because you all think Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes settled their surprise divorce quickly, don’t tell that to the gossip glossies. According to our favorite purveyor of speculative speculation — In Touch magazine — Tom has “secret plans” for Suri.

He’ll try to get as much time with the six-year-old as possible. Perhaps even take her on vacation. It’s all a plot to plant seeds of Scientology in Suri’s head. This story insists he’ll use his two adopted children withNicole Kidman — Isabella andConnor, who have a distant relationship with the woman they call “Nicole” — to help indoctrinate Suri.

I don’t think so. Primarily because Katie has proved so effective in her PR campaign. At the first sign that Suri is yearning to read the works of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, Katie would be back on the streets of Manhattan, once again surrounded by bodyguards, indicating fear of Tom and his pals. And carrying Suri. (Neither parent seems willing to let the six-year-old walk on her own.)

Tom wants access to his only flesh of his flesh daughter, period. He loves his child, but he also loves his career. He will not jeopardize either in the face of the surprisingly tough and resilient Katie Holmes.

IT’S OK with me for the NCAA to punish the late Joe Paterno. He is past being hurt and I am not defending him. I get it that football has become less a sport than a business and a pastime for fans.

But while it’s OK to strip Paterno of his title and take down the silly statue where he has one finger up in the air — is it right to deny the Penn State football players under his guidance their “wins”? I don’t really think their amazing records can (or should be) erased.

FROM WHAT I saw yesterday of attorney Lisa Damiani ”defending” the parents of the Colorado killer — well, it was memorable, but not in a good way! This woman droned on and on instead of making a simple statement … constantly worked her mouth while talking … and laughed inappropriately at reporters’ questions! Believe me, with friends like this, the parents of the young killer (whose name I will never bother to memorize or write) don’t need enemies.

LOTS OF opinions in an opinionated world! Let the disagreements begin.

 

This column originally appeared on NYSocialDiary.com on 7/25/12

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 comments so far.

  1. avatar Baby Snooks says:

    I agree with you about the NCAA “stripping the title” from all the players who knew nothing about what was going on.  If they knew nothing about what was going on.

  2. avatar TheTexasMom says:

    I disagree with the Penn State issue.  The wins go into the record books under Paterno’s name not the players.   If everyone had come clean about what they knew when it would be a non -issue.  If they were found out a few years back they probably would have had their football scholarships reduced by 5-10 and who is to say what players would have been there and what they would have contributed.   And if all Paterno’s friends, fans and family are worrided about is his records then they are worrying about the wrong thing.