web counter
 

Maybe Aronofsky Will Let Rachel Weisz Masturbate on Camera

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (19)

RachelWeifsz.jpg

The heterosexual male (and half the female) population of North America and Europe wept Godtopus tears a couple of days ago when we learned that, despite begging to do so, director Alejandro Amenaba wouldn’t allow Rachel Weisz to burn the brush in their film, Agora.

Maybe Darren Aronovsky will grant her the wish. And what would be more bizarre than watching Jackie-O diddle the skittle?

Indeed, EW is reporting that Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream) is set to produce and direct a movie about Jackie Onassis. Aronofsky’s wife, Rachel Weisz, is attached to play the lead.

The movie is set to examine Onassis in the four days immediately after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, leading up to his burial. It’s expected to show “the beloved Kennedy at both her most vulnerable and her most graceful.”

Well, that probably rules out any bean flicking. Dammit. But hey! Rachel Weisz as Jackie O? I can dig it. She may not pilfer the pill, but she will wear the pill box.

(And yes: I did enjoy writing this post.)









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← News: Violet Tendencies Trailer | Is It OK to Say "Fag Hag" if the Movie is About a Self-Described "Fag Hag"? | Lost: Everybody Loves Hugo Recap →









Comments

She's light years hotter than the actual Jackie, who was really only hot in comparison to the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt.

If I were a woman I'd be a lesbian, and I'd stalk Rachel Weisz. In those very few moments I wasn't busy diddling the Skittle. I really don't know why women ever leave the house.

Posted by: , at April 14, 2010 11:09 AM

I'm bored, so I made these up:
Harbor the Fugitive
Bang the Tang
Thump the Bump
Earmark Your Favorite
Hood the Falcon
Bless Your Mess
Release the Kraken
Investigate the Hurt Locker
Make Your Butthole Jealous
Goad the Grinch
Anger the Panty Monster

Posted by: Kballs at April 14, 2010 11:26 AM

"I really don't know why women ever leave the house."

Posted by: ,


Well , if you would do your job and make sure we have a hot butler to do the indoor chores and a hot pool boy and gardener for the outdoor chores, we'd never have to leave the house or even wear clothes, now would we. Huh? Huh? Huh?

Posted by: BWeaves at April 14, 2010 11:27 AM

I don't know if it was within the four days following the assassination, but John Jr.'s third birthday occurred very shortly after his father's death, and of course an elaborate birthday party had been planned. Because "John-John" was too young to understand what was going on, Mrs. Kennedy decided to go ahead with the birthday party for him and his little friends.

To see that event dramatized would be amazing.

Actually, to see Rachel Weisz is always amazing, so I'll be there regardless.

Posted by: Jerce at April 14, 2010 11:34 AM

It depends, BWeaves. Is "chores" a euphemism? Kballs broke my entendredar.

Posted by: branded at April 14, 2010 11:35 AM

Shake Hands with the Clitoris-Shaped Midget in Your Vagina

Posted by: Kballs at April 14, 2010 11:39 AM

My favorite Jackie-O is still Parker Posey.

Posted by: Mr. Tusks at April 14, 2010 11:40 AM

It depends, BWeaves. Is "chores" a euphemism? Kballs broke my entendredar.

Posted by: branded

"Chores" is a double secret probation entendre. It means regular chores, so I don't have to do housework, which leaves me time to do those other chores, and maybe not even by myself.

Posted by: BWeaves at April 14, 2010 11:45 AM

I'm actually going to talk about this post.

I read/heard somewhere (I can't remember 'cause I'm old now) that after JFK was declared dead, Jackie asked to see the body and supposedly touched it for the last time. And I will NOT succumb to temptation and say that that's when she double-clicked her mouse because that would be wrong and sick.

People are really getting the Kennedy-era casting right lately. First Damon as Bobby, now Mrs. Weisz as Jackie. OMFG, THEY SHOULD DO A CROSSOVER MOVIE!!!!111

Posted by: Sofía at April 14, 2010 12:06 PM

Physically, she's perfect. They both have that creepy "eyes too far apart" thing that actually works for them in a strange way even though for most people we'd be calling the cousins-who-marry-cousins police.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 14, 2010 12:16 PM

"She's light years hotter than the actual Jackie, who was really only hot in comparison to the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt."

Oh, please - I should hope somebody who is beautiful for a living is prettier than a politician's wife. I tire of Jackie worship, but I can't deny that she was absolutely lovely and one of the most fashionable women to have walked the earth. Her sister Lee was beautiful, too.

And ER was fierce and brilliant. Girlfriend didn't need to be purty.

Posted by: samantha t at April 14, 2010 12:25 PM

samantha t,

Just sayin' that after Eleanor and Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower*, you didn't have to be an oil painting for people to think you were beautiful. I'll grant her "kinda sorta pretty" with good fashion sense scoring her a bonus point.

*--Not actually ugly

BWeaves,

Touche. (Pronounced "touchy.")

Posted by: , at April 14, 2010 1:08 PM

PaddyDog, really?

You look at the picture above and your primary thought is, "Her eyes are too far apart"? I get what you're saying (only a little tiny bit though) for Jackie O, but not Rachel Weisz. She's just hot.

Posted by: MM at April 14, 2010 1:47 PM

I'm curious. What character development, exactly, does Ms. Weisz claim is - er - supported by her shebopping on screen. I mean, I know what it would do for me. And DVD sales. But, what's in it, so to speak, for the character?

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at April 14, 2010 5:18 PM

Bierce: reminds me of a hilarious interview with Kate Beckinsale in which she said she's been asked to do shower scenes because "it's what the character would do" and that she's often thought that she would also take a dump, but they never want to show that.

Posted by: samantha t at April 14, 2010 6:00 PM

Enjoyed reading this post as well.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at April 14, 2010 6:08 PM

MM:

I'm not saying she's not attractive. She is. It works for her. But, yes, her eyes are farther apart than most people's. So were Jacqueline Kennedy's. It's just interesting to me how on some people it looks quirky but attractive, but on others it just looks in-bred.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 14, 2010 6:38 PM

Dustin you crack me up. It was like I read your mind. I bet Dustin had a great time writing this post.

Yeah. He sure did.

Posted by: Sapphiar at April 14, 2010 7:51 PM

This post was just tasteless.

Posted by: Brian at April 15, 2010 1:29 AM