web
counter


Jimmy Fallon's 'The Tonight Show' Cut Shailene Woodley's Gender Politics Discussion from their Broadcast

By Dustin Rowles | Celebrities Are Better than You | June 2, 2014 | Comments ()


Screen Shot 2014-06-02 at 10.49.11 AM.png

There’s a great piece up on NY Magazine this week about Shailene Woodley and Brie Larson, two great friends who also happen to be reshaping Hollywood. They are very much themselves. They do not cultivate particularly Hollywood-friendly images, and they are outspoken about their hippie-granola ways. I like them both, although Brie Larson has set herself apart by starring in some of the best indie flicks of the last few years (I’ve noticed on Facebook many folks coming around to marvelous wonder that is Short Term 12 on Netflix). But I do appreciate that both are outspoken about certain personality traits that don’t always endear them to broader audiences: Their feminism (or Woodley’s “humanism”) veganism, gluten-free-ism, and their general attitude toward the glamour of celebrity.

During the course of the piece, however, the interviewer — Lynn Hirschberg — attended a taping of The Tonight Show with Shailene Woodley, and noticed that a section in which Woodley had harshed the Fallon mellow had been cut. Fallon had asked Woodley how she felt about being compared to Jennifer Lawrence, and Woodley did not appreciate the question, perhaps rightfully:

On the afternoon of the Fallon taping, Woodley was dressed in her glam public-appearances attire: high heels, long legs, short dress. She looked fantastic. She brought on a large, rather phallic-looking horseradish root and discussed its virtues with the host, who looked frightened. Halfway through the conversation, Fallon, who can border on golly-gee cheerleading during his interviews, said, “How do you feel about being compared to Jennifer Lawrence?”

Woodley paused. “Well,” she said. “Comparisons always lead to despair.” There was sudden silence, and then the audience, which was shocked and angry, began to boo. Fallon said something like “Whoa,” and Woodley held her ground. “As women, we are constantly told that we need to compare ourselves to a girl in school, to our co-­workers, to the images in a magazine,” she told me later. “How is the world going to advance if we’re always comparing ourselves to others? I admire Jennifer Lawrence, but she’s everyone’s favorite person to compare me to. Is it because we both have short hair and a vagina? I see us as separate individuals. And that’s important. As women, our insecurities are based on all these comparisons. And that creates distress.”

The audience in Studio 6B wasn’t listening, and neither was Fallon. That section of the interview was cut by the Tonight Show producers: Later that evening, when the show aired, Woodley’s gender politics were erased. “It bothered me, because it’s human nature to feel bad if you are booed by an entire audience,” Woodley said, sounding completely unbothered.

A reader over on Twitter, LLCanada (hat tip!) asked whether it was “sexism or business” behind the cut, and personally, I don’t think it’s either. I think it has more to do with the Fallon-ization of The Tonight Show, which is to say: Jimmy Fallon doesn’t really allow for moments that might temper the audience’s good spirits. It’s something of a shame, really, because it also means weeding out thoughtful commentary that might otherwise challenge his audience. But Fallon has no interest in challenging his audience; he only wants to delight and entertain them, and when a guest pushes back against comparisons that put all female actresses into the same box by virtue of having a vagina, he erases the conflict.

God forbid, a Tonight Show viewer stop beaming for a moment to consider something beyond a celebrity’s lip-syncing skills.

It’s unfortunate, and while I don’t think Fallon cut it out of maliciousness, the audience’s reaction — booing in response to her answer — was distressing. Why in God’s name would you boo that, anyway?

Source: NYMag



Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance

Around the Web


'Game Of Thrones' - 'The Mountain And The Viper': Been Constantly So Frustrated, I've Moved Mountains With Less | The Lee Pace-iest Moment from This Week's 'Halt and Catch Fire'





Comments Are Welcome, Jerks Will Be Banned


  • CalamityKait

    While I understand her irritation and being compared to another young star rather than talking about her work - young women in Hollywood are subject to scrutiny regarding their image, particularly when in comes to how they look and what they wear, to a much greater degree than men of any age - in this case I think it is a fair comparison.

    It isn't just that they're both female and about the same age. They're also tall, athletically-built, talented young women who've played similar roles, in particular action heroes in movie adaptations of popular YA novel trilogies and character-driven drama-comedies.

    Anna Kendrick, another high-profile, highly regarded actress of about the same age doesn't get compared despite having some similar characteristics - an Oscar nomination, a self-deprecating charm similar to Lawrence's in interviews. But she doesn't play the same types of roles, tending to favor musicals (two coming out this year) and roles in which she's smarter than everyone around her, but a bit naive, and is a different physical type, petite and model thin.

    That said, I think part of the problem is that Lawrence is a master at creating an image that people find charming. She's self-deprecating in a charming way, always has a quirky anecdote about her family life ready for any interview. She may actually be quirky and charming away from the camera, I don't know, but she's awlays "on" when in front of one.

    And therein lies the problem. The comparison isn't about the work, it's about the public image, and expecting Woodley or any other young woman to behave in their personal lives or in publicity appearances or present a similar image in terms of physical appearance or personality is both unrealistic and unfair.

    And the focus on personal image rather than the quality of the work makes for problems when young actresses are held up as role models for the girls who watch them.

  • Haystacks

    That was a goddam fantastic answer. Granola-kombuchaness aside, this girl has a great head on her shoulders.

  • John G.

    I've never watched The Tonight Show with Fallon or Leno or Carson. Is it normal to have guests talk about real things, or are they just there to promote books and movies?

    If it's just kiss up nonsense and media promotion, then all shows should be hosted by Chris Hardwick.

  • googergieger

    I will say that girls/women aren't the only ones compared to other girls/women. People in general are constantly comparing themselves and others to other people as well. Growing up my mom constantly compared me with other kids and I hated it. Most jobs I've had, I'm constantly compared to others and vice versa. I constantly compare myself to others as well. In any case horrible question my Jimmy Fallon and too serious an answer for a horrible question by whats her face. What are you gonna do?

  • Coolg82

    To me this is distressing. I just really haven't found the Tonight Show with Fallon to be that funny, as his comedy just isn't my kind of comedy, but this is not very good. It would be one thing if she went on a rant and said things that could be interpreted as inflammatory and he cut a disrespectful segment, but all she did was say that we shouldn't hold people to standards that they may not want to be held too, and that was just too much for him. I read this and thought "bread and circuses". It is a bad thing that the audience thought that this should be booed, but I think its worse that the Tonight Show thought that this should be excised from existence, as we wouldn't know about it except for the dude who saw it and saw it was cut. Its also ironic that Fallon doesn't want any drama to interfere with the show, but it was the drama of Hugh Grant's lewd conduct with a prostitute in the 90s that actually brought The Tonight Show to its #1 spot where it stayed after Carson left.

  • Random_Disqus_Guy

    I guess I would have to see the context, but I have no earthly idea why the fuck the audience would boo that statement.

  • Honestly, why boo her response? It didn't sound canned nor an angry quip. It sounded honest and heartfelt (if a bit melodramatic, but that may have been poetic license).

    As for cutting it, these shows live on the idea of being friendly, non-threatening. A booing crowd is one step away from anarchy for the folks who watch them.

  • Sara Green Williams

    Because that's what people do - she brought up something that made them uncomfortable and people really hate it when women make them feel uncomfortable. We're supposed to "be nice" and "not rock the boat" and "smile" and make everyone feel better. This is a large-scale version of what is said or done to women every day, over and over again, in overt or inadvertent ways.

  • LL

    She said “Comparisons always lead to despair.” There's a beat. Then she got booed. I think it's fair to say that the audience thought she was putting down Jen Lawrence.

  • Random_Disqus_Guy

    Then they are morons.

  • Jim

    Exactly what I was thinking: Boo it? I'd want to hear more. I'd like to hear her thought process. Even a simple "How So?" from Fallon so she could make her point. But, no "Boo" it was.

    This is why I cannot attend tapings like this. That and the fact I'm sadly unable to hold my arm upward & propeller my forearm while saying "Woo Woo Woo" forcefully.

  • Davis

    Isn't that a standard thing comparing actresses to other actresses and actors to other actors?

  • Guest

    I think when they both have dystopian movie franchises based on YA books it might be? Also when they're both known for being outspoken?

  • Jim

    It's the context of the comparison that made the question a "huh" moment incarnate - without context it became "you're both broads, how's the workin' for you."

    Now if it'd been something like "You're the lead in "Forrest of Trees" opening next week in theatres everywhere - see if people, it'll change your lives. Dame Helen Mirren created the role on the London stage. Do you think people will compare how you both approached the character of Edwina? Did you talk to her before you took the role?"

  • LL

    Not really. Jen Lawrence comparisons have been constant with many young actresses. Woodley knew exactly the context. The wording of her initial response sounded like she was putting down Jen Lawrence.

  • TBF to both, this isn't new. 10 years ago, every young actress was compared to Natalie Portman. Before that, it was Kate Winslet. Before that it was Winona Ryder.

  • Jim

    Oh I get it - I'm a little dyslexic and didn't see that angle. I'd thought she meant comparisons are usually a lose-lose scenario.

  • LL

    That's definitely what she meant, but I believe it states that they booed her before she explained what the statement meant.

  • Jim

    You must admit it's sad you and I are understanding the behaviour of people who BOOed another living human being because they took her meaning incorrectly.

  • Kate at June

    Example of a male up and comer who is compared to another male up and comer?

  • L.O.V.E.

    I am constantly being compared to Pedro Pazcal, and it needs to stop, ladies! I may look like him but I won't do the accent, gah.

  • JJ

    Woodley definitely gets the stupid question all the time. As for current "up and comer" comparisons, though I would hardly define two-time Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence that way, Chris Pratt and Chris Hemsworth, Miles Teller/Josh Hutcherson/Robert Pattinson, Logan Lerman and Daniel Radcliffe, Nicholas Hoult and Robert Pattinson.

    Comparisons for both genders have been around forever. Who's the next DiCaprio/Cruise/James Dean/Brad Pitt/Cary Grant? We sports fans could go on forever about it as well.

  • Kate at June

    I haven't seen any of those comparisons. I certainly haven't seen any interviews where Chris Pratt is asked of common comparisons to Chris Hemsworth and what he thinks about that. But I also don't pay attention to interviews much outside of the context of this website. (Those two just as an example--I haven't seen it at all)

    Who is the next "Brad Pitt," sure--but thats a passing of the torch thing, not a competition thing. I don't see Lawrence in that place because her career--though it rose quickly--is still just in its beginning.

  • JJ

    The passing of the torch thing was a separate point. Because historically, those comparisons have been around forever within genders.

    Those were just the examples off the top of my head of those that I have seen before. I'm sure that there are more (Cumberbatch/Hiddleston, JGL/Gosling, etc). "Up and comers" of both genders get compared all the time, and detrimentally so.

  • Davis

    Also when Fruitvale Station came out EVERYONE was comparing him to every black actor under the sun, but there was no racism debate.

  • JJ

    Michael B. Jordan? Oh yes. Just like the inevitable comparisons the wonderful John Boyega will be receiving soon enough.

  • Davis

    It will definitely happen, all of the movie reviews, blogs and commenters will be comparing them both together and not thinking it's racist.

  • Davis

    Jack O' Connell and Tom Hardy

  • Berry

    And not just compared, but pitted against. I don't know if it's happened to Woodley and Lawrence, but back when I used to read celebitchy, they were often reporting on articles asking inane questions like "Is Kristen Stewart jealous of JLaw?" "Does JLaw think KStew's about to steal roles from under her nose?" and so on and so forth.

  • Davis

    Women eat that stuff up though, not generalizing or trying to be offensive but look most of the people who read the gossip blogs like they're the bible are females. I've seen stuff where they pit actors against each other but because they're guys women just don't care.

    But if you but two women together look at the comments sections women will other start picking sides or start talking about sexism, it's all about page views.

  • "Women eat that stuff up though, not generalizing or trying to be offensive but look most of the people who read the gossip blogs like they're the bible are females." That's not so much a broad generalization, as it is a generalization about broads. <rimshot>

    Seriously though, if you didn't want to generalize, you kind of missed the mark there because that's pretty much a textbook example of generalization.

  • Berry

    I don't understand your point. Because if you're trying to say that women can be sexist, then that's not exactly news for me, trust.

    I understand your second paragraph even less, but I must admit it's hilarious when people point out how blogs that rely on add revenue want page views. No shit, Sherlock.

  • Davis

    Of course, does it matter what my point is? You don't agree with me so you twist my opinion.

    Ok i'm troll, racist, sexist and just for fun i'm totally homophobic.

  • Berry

    I really truly only meant that I didn't understand what you were trying to say. And you're the one putting words in my mouth, so have fun with that.

  • Davis

    Of course

  • LL

    Someone please explain to me whether everything she says here was only in the interview with the writer or whether it was said live on the show. I interpret it as having been all post-show. Many of you are supporting her response, but I question whether that's how she phrased it when she was in the face of a booing crowd.

    “As women, we are constantly told that we need to compare ourselves to a girl in school, to our co-­workers, to the images in a magazine,” she told me later. “How is the world going to advance if we’re always comparing ourselves to others? I admire Jennifer Lawrence, but she’s everyone’s favorite person to compare me to. Is it because we both have short hair and a vagina? I see us as separate individuals. And that’s important. As women, our insecurities are based on all these comparisons. And that creates distress.”

  • L.O.V.E.

    That is a legitimate point. She was there to promote a movie, and has her own Studio machine who may have even pushed for the exchange to be cut. If she got booed and then got a bit flustered or put on the spot she may have been less eloquent than when she spoke subsequently to the reporter. What she actually said to Fallon may not have been as clear or as well-spoken.

  • Yossarian

    The article implies that this happened at the show taping in front of a live audience and that the reporter was in attendance to get the quote first hand. It's certainly possible that the reporter polished the statement a little in her re-telling but that seems like an unnecessary assumption to make.

  • L.O.V.E.

    But what you see in quotes was said to the reporter later; it wasn't said to Fallon. We know she objected to the comparison in such a way that she got booed. If Fallon's schtick is that he is a safe, fun haven for his guest, for all we know Shailene's or the Studio's people gave Fallon's producer an earful for even bringing up the question. Especially if she came off poorly on the live taping.

    By the way, I base all of this on my having watched the Larry Shandling show, so it's infallible analysis.

  • Yossarian

    You're right, I missed a spot:

    "“As women, we are constantly told that we need to compare ourselves to a girl in school, to our co-­workers, to the images in a magazine,” she told me later. “How is the world going to advance if we’re always comparing ourselves to others?"

  • LL

    Yes, the writer was there, but the article does not state in clear words whether the response Shailene gave was the one she gave live or the one from the interview afterwards. All we have to go by is "she told me later," which means.. what?

  • SVR

    “Sexism or business”? Sexism *is* business.

  • LL

    Not in this context, no. Editing out a portion of an interview doesn't equate to a profitable business decision driven by a supposed sexist action.

  • SVR

    Women talking about gender issues in the public sphere often causes controversy (to say the absolute least!). It's entirely possible that portion of the interview was cut because it didn't play well with the audience, wasn't good for the Tonight Show's brand, didn't fit with Fallon's vision of the show, etc. Regardless, when dealing with sexism and racism, not all business decisions are made with profit motives. In fact, they are frequently irrational, but are no less "business".

  • In this instance, profitable business would have kept it, promoted it and made it into an event that Today and MSNBC and CNBC could then spend a week beating to death.

  • LL

    We're agreeing then, right?

  • Very much so.

    Yay profits!

  • Naye

    I never liked Shailene before. Now I do.

  • Maybe Fallon was embarrassed because he asked a dumb question that led to a guest being booed.

    Jimmy Fallon is a sycophant of the worst order. It's part of what makes him successful because guests feel otherwise "safe" with him to do dumb stunts. He's not Letterman. He's not going to box you into a corner or go out of his way to make a fool out of anyone.

    Woodley's response to the question was totally correct, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying I don't think it's the case of censorship people want it to be.

  • logan

    That looks like a big root so she has big hands?

    Also what benefits of horseradish? That stuff is nasty.

  • Some Guy

    It's excellent with prime rib.

  • logan

    Have tried it do not like it with prime rib.

  • Some Guy

    was it straight horseradish or was it cut with something? Add some sour cream next time.

    But then again, I was raised eating the stuff from a young age, so perhaps it's just not meant to be.

  • Jim

    Except when you mistake it for badly fashioned coleslaw and try to eat it out of politesse.

  • It is wonderful, in small doses. Cocktail sauce would not be the same without it, nor Bloody Marys. I like it in sauces accompanying red meat, as well. But it's not everyone's thing.

  • logan

    Did not know it was in cocktail sauce which i do use. Thanks.
    Do not drink bloody marys.

  • Pants_are_a_must

    Has she addressed already the idiotic remark she's made about not being a feminist because she likes men? (http://time.com/87967/shailene... Because otherwise I'm not particularly interested in anything she has to say, to be perfectly honest.

  • Yossarian

    So you're implying feminism is very important to you, yet you're also taking a complex human being, an ambitious young woman with unique perspectives and experiences, and reducing her down to one easily quantifiable aspect of her personality and dismissing "anything she has to say" based on that distinction.

    How exactly are you defining feminism then? Is it "Either you're with us or your against us?" Or is it actually about supporting women? Including ones who agree with you in spirit but have a misconception about terminology? Questioning or challenging some of the ideas she has is all well and good but where's the value in ostracizing and dismissing women who disagree with you from what I assume you are defining as a broad-based movement (*no pun intended).

    Because her comments here are actually pretty great, and feminist, whether she would call them that or not.

  • John G.

    I think this is a good point, but it's difficult for me to accept it, because the idea that feminists hate men and that people are afraid to call themselves feminists because of the massively successful campaign by subhuman monsters like Rush Limbaugh is extremely troubling. There are many kinds of feminism, and there are many disagreements between the different schools of thought, especially when it comes to political and social actions in response to anti-feminism, but to use the massive bullhorn that celebrity offers you to parrot the insane and backwards hate speech of the Rush Limbaughs of the world is very disturbing. That being said, she is young. She is in an industry that despises feminists. So, I don't exactly blame her. I'm just disappointed at the situation.

  • Sorry, but I must object to the idea that "supporting women" is a plausible definition of feminism. The most basic common denominator among feminists should be a commitment to equal rights and opportunities for women. There have been many WOMEN who oppose that notion, and supporting them is NOT a feminist act, no matter how much the McCain campaign tried to paint voting for Palin as some sort of GrrlPower party.

  • Yossarian

    Not a definition, but certainly a corollary. At least insofar as giving a moment's consideration to the statements above and their possible value can be called "support".

  • Nope, can't even get down with "corollary." There are just too many people out there yakking to the effect of "... but we have to support women, or we're not being good feminists"; it's misguided and detrimental. Creating huge opportunities (political or economic) for a few privileged women, so that they in turn can crap all over the rights and opportunities of large GROUPS of women...that's not progress.

    That said... I do agree that Ms. Woodley has every right to voice her opinions and be treated respectfully, whether or not I agree with her. Not because I feel compelled to protect my sister-woman's voice for the good of feminism, but because it's common courtesy and pretty much an indicator of civilized conversation. It's a shame the audience boo'd her, both because that's just rude, period, and because, had they checked their peanut-gallery impulses for five seconds, it would have become clear that she was NOT putting Lawrence down.

  • Pants_are_a_must

    Yes, I would say that not knowing the definition to feminism, especially being a so-called game changer, and a woman who is reasonably educated with a whole team of people around her who also should know better, is a pretty big no in my book about her opinions. It's not "be with us or be against us," it's "know your shit." As I said in my earlier comment, which you chose to ignore in favor of vitriol, if she addressed those comments, I'd be willing to hear her out. And I was asking an honest question. Enjoy your internet stay.

  • Joann Griswold

    Words, titles do not define anyone. It is behavior and other attributes...and Shalene Woodley has a lot more going for her than those who booed her, or criticize her statement. Are you a "maleist?"

  • Yossarian

    There's a difference between vitriol and challenging you.

    Is she calling herself a game changer? Or is she responsible for living up to that expectation if you put it on her? Is she obligated to listen to her "team of people?" What if her team of people are the ones who told her not to use the F-word? Would that absolve her or indict her further? And Is it really a good reason to dismiss her entirely? Is it feminist?

    I don't know if she addressed her previous comments or not but I don't think it's a valid reason to dismiss her contributions either way.

  • B. Garcia

    Ah, yes. Yossarian charging out on a white horse to defend Shailene Woodley's honor. This looks familiar. Was it Kafka who wrote: "In a fight between you and the world, back the world"? In a fight between Shalene and feminism, back feminism.

    Completely serious question: Are you on her PR/management team or related to her?

  • John G.

    "white horse" - go back 3 spaces for using MRA nonsense speak.

  • B. Garcia

    Do you really think the phrase originated with MRA? Go back three spaces to your sophomore year in HS.

  • John G.

    no, of course not, but only moron MRA's use it in that context. Lose a turn.

  • Kate at June

    She's quite young. I have always been for equality, but it probably took until I was 21 or 22 to call myself a feminist. Ignorance is not necessarily antagonistic. It would be lovely if she had someone she trusted to dismantle those incorrect presumptions, but assuming that a woman with a "team" in Hollywood has anyone that progressive around her is a bit of a stretch.

  • JustOP

    I wouldn't describe myself as feminist. Is that an ignorant stance to take?

  • John G.

    yes, but better ignorant than actively hateful.

  • JustOP

    actively hateful?

  • Kate at June

    Generally yes, though I see a few ways that could not be true.

    In my mind, people not willing to call themselves feminists come from 4 places:

    1. Not supporting equal rights for women
    2. Not understanding what feminism actually is
    3. People of color not believing that feminism has their best interests at heart, or believing feminism in its current form only benefits white women
    4: If I'm being generous and giving someone the benefit of the doubt--a man not describing himself as such out of respect to some female feminists who prefer men not use the term.

  • puppetDoug

    1. I support equal rights, pay, everything for all peoples based on merit, not race, gender, creed, or political bend.
    2. I understand what feminism was, what second wave feminism was, but I don't understand what it has become. I sincerely can't get a grip on it -- it seems to oscillate too wildly between defining itself as a gender equality movement that anyone can join and a group vehemently against having open discourses with men about similar issues such as sexual and physical assault that goes the other way. The members differ so much in range, and exclusive, loud, violent, and crazy minorities within groups have a way of insisting on themselves and keeping out people, probably such as Woodley.
    3. Can't speak to 3. I'm a person of color who does feel a lot of this is about caucasians, but I think if a woman of color wants to be included in feminist discourse then you call yourself a feminist and start that conversation yourself.
    4. The idea that some female feminists prefer I not use the term is enough for me not to use it on its own. The fact that I'll probably be berated for saying any of this by someone, makes me want my own group. Not a men's group, a group that's legitimately genderless that deals with these issues. Feminism is not that, no matter how you slice it. It started that way, but it isn't anymore. There are large swaths of it that do not want men to be the subject of any of its conversations (understandably), and that's fine, but that means it can't take on all the gender issues, because while feminism is broad, it is decidedly not about men. Men are welcome as long as they are there to help women, like a white person at the Million Man March. That is fine, but not fine for what I need. There are men and boys out there who were physically, mentally, and sexually abused, and by women. They are not welcome in these conversations AND DON'T HAVE TO BE. The term is exclusive to me and many others. To not term yourself a feminist is not necessarily an act of anti-feminism, just as to not be a Black Panther or a follower of Dr. King is not to say you aren't against racism. It's a silly black and white position many of you have that makes it even less likely I would ever call myself a feminist.

  • JustOP

    I'm in support for equal rights for women - but the idea that you can claim feminism boils down to that idea, and that idea only, is demonstrably false.

    Feminism is, at best, a term to describe a group of people whom discuss/explore certain things with a specific angle in mind. However, feminism allows these people to have opposing views to one another whilst still falling under the umbrella term of 'feminism'. As a small example, we can have two people whom have diametrically opposed views of pornography, yet can still plausibly call themselves feminist.

    I don't believe I need to call myself a 'feminist' in order to believe that everybody deserves a fair and equal chance. I also don't want to be labelled as a feminist because, on an individual basis, feminists can have a huge difference in their beliefs. And I believe that SOME beliefs within the feminist sphere are harmful, and do not wish to be associated with them. But that isn't to say there aren't some points 'feminism' makes that I agree with.

    I can't speak to the fourth point, but I have been reading recently perspectives of non-white feminists and it's been pretty interesting.

  • Joann Griswold

    Well said ! I agree with you.

  • Kate at June

    That's fine. I'm not trying to be harsh, but I'm not interesting in engaging your POV on this--you asked, I answered

    I'm having this discussion enough in real life and it's been driving me crazy; I'm not about to entertain it online. (edit bc im an asshole, apparently) I still see it as ignorant and/or stubborn. Anything to not have to use the F word.

  • JustOP

    You're an asshole? Who said that?

  • Kate at June

    Oh! Me! ;) I can't just let things go without putting another 2 cents in.

  • JustOP

    No worries - I appreciate the input! And good luck with your irl troubles.

  • Kate at June

    Thank you! The events of the last week have made me reassess 90% of my male friendships. Wohoo?

  • Berry

    That doesn't unfortunately surprise me at all.

  • JustOP

    Haha wow, really? That sounds a little intense, I'm not sure what could spark something like that to happen.

  • Kate at June

    Their reactions to the shootings, mainly.

  • Zen

    How excessively patronising.

  • John G.

    that's not very zen of you.

  • Zen

    IMPOSTORE!

  • oui

    I wonder how CraigyFerg would have approached this question, if at all. Never heard his audience boo guests even on hard-hitting questions like the ones he talked about with Stephen Fry or Desmond Tutu...

    Is it because CraigyFerg's extra-late night audiences are of a different breed compared to Fallons, or
    Is it because CraigyFerg only asks hardhitting questions to predominantly male guests with stature behind them?

  • Jiffylush

    When Craigyferg has a young star on they are there to promote a movie or whatever. They usually come out with a funny anecdote or two that they want to say. Stephen Fry had nothing to promote, he was there to have a deep, meaningful, one on one conversation. It's my favorite episode and I will do my best to keep it forever. Not sure about why Desmond Tutu was on the show but you certainly aren't going to ask him about people comparing him to some actor.

  • Berry

    But there will be penis shaped root vegetables, apparently.

    On a more serious note, it's only too bad that the exchange was cut. It sounds like it was something many of us really needed to hear. And Woodley seems like a good enough egg, questionable views on feminism notwithstanding.

  • BWeaves

    It's a turnip, shaped like a thingy.

  • Berry

    I'm a big hit at parties.

  • logan

    horseradish

  • BWeaves

    The turnip is a Blackadder reference.

  • logan

    excuse my ignorance.

  • Zen

    Takes me right back to our wedding night.

blog comments powered by Disqus









Follow Us





Viral Hits
Celebrity Facts

The Best TV & Movie Quotes

The Walking Dead

How I Met Your Mother

True Detective

Parks and Recreation

Cosmos

Hannibal

30 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Children

25 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Twins