Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

GQ: Sorry About That Whole 'Olivia Wilde's Ass' Thing

News
by Sam Adams
June 26, 2014 10:06 AM
9 Comments
  • |
Liam Neeson and Olivia Wilde in "Third Person"

GQ's Tom Carson is a great movie critic who won two National Magazine Awards during his tenure at Esquire, but even he might admit that his review of Paul Haggis' "Third Person" was not his finest hour. As Jezebel pointed out in a blistering post called "Olivia Wilde's Ass Is Too Nice for Her to Play a Writer," he used Wilde's movie-star physique to attack the sex-romp clichés of writer-director Paul Haggis' movie, in the process implying that women can't, or at least needn't, be both beautiful and smart.

She's supposed to be a writer too, but your belief in that won't outlast Wilde scampering naked through hotel corridors once Neeson playfully locks her out of his room. With that tush, who'd need to be literate? Who'd want to?


As Jezebel's Kara Brown puts it:

Not to be picky here, but even a woman as beautiful as Olivia Wilde with a bottom-half worthy of Tom Carson's amusement might still want to be literate for reasons that include being a confident, active member of society. I'm sure she would enjoy literacy if for no other reason than to understand her butt modeling contracts and the stipulations in her yoga pants endorsements.

Also, if Tom Carson, a person who writes, is saying that writers can't have nice asses, then I say: "SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, DUDE."


Carson evidently agrees, as he retweed GQ's apology this morning:

If you read the offending passage in context, it plays a little bit better, since it follows a paragraph where he calls Liam Neeson's "virile, cosmopolitan literary man... a crock—a conception of The Novelist that's been obsolete even to adolescents for half a century or more." But he manages to do it without bringing Liam Neeson's posterior, which is probably pretty nice for a 62-year-old's, into the discussion, and should have shown Wilde the same courtesy. (While we're at it, posting the review under the headline "The Redeeming Part of Paul Haggis' 'Third Person': Liam Neeson and Olivia Wilde's Sex Scene" doesn't do anyone any favors.) Movie stars, as a class, tend to be more attractive, and better-assed, than normal people, but attacking that fundamental unreality by singling out a part of a woman's body is not the best way to make the argument, especially when it puts you on Olivia Wilde's shit list.

News
  • |

9 Comments

  • Peter Keough | June 27, 2014 12:14 PMReply

    Perhaps the note of irony has been missed here.

  • Chris | June 26, 2014 10:46 AMReply

    So much hypocrisy here. Please! The fact is that Olivia Wilde is a bad actress who has her looks to thank for everything. I guess being naked was imperative for her getting these parts as well. ;)

  • Mark | June 26, 2014 11:27 AM

    Hey Chris, were you thinking that your smiley face made your comment less gross or juvenile? It didn't work.

  • gfc | June 26, 2014 10:27 AMReply

    it doesnt be a problem if they had say the truth since the beggining "OLIVIA WILDE IS A MEDIOCRE ACTRESS" and not something like they said, specially when Olivia is the kind of celebs who just looks hot in her boring movies and photoshoops where her fans cant see her ugly legs, huge and square head, her disgusting facial features and her macho men jaw

  • Victor | June 26, 2014 8:10 PM

    @WESLEY
    Her is a good movie because Olivia has a small role on Her, if she´d had a leading role on Her like she had on House that movie would have been a flop, so the only reason Hollywood producers hire Olivia for her movies it´s because of she is popular and the only reason she participated in that roundtable is because of that. By the way you should stop thinking she looks in real life in the same way she looks on screen and photoshoops because if you are right and Olivia is a beauty, then i´d like to know who is that woman with a transvestite face and legs which look like tree trunks that i´ve seen in thousand of pics from articles about Olivia Wilde

  • Chris | June 26, 2014 6:53 PM

    No the smiley was used because I consider all this PC nonsense to be ludicrous. There are reasons she are getting parts to play, and her acting isn't one of them.

  • Wesley | June 26, 2014 4:49 PM

    @Victor
    She participated in a roundtable for outstanding, breakthrough performances last fall with other fabulous actors like Adele Exarchopoulos, Barkhad Abdi, David Oyelowo, Greta Gerwig, and Kathryn Hahn. This February, she was featured in W Magazine's Best Performances issue. She received acclaim for her Drinking Buddies and her small, but scene-stealing role in Her. Several reviewers have mentioned Olivia as giving a incredible performance in Third Person and two have even mentioned Oscar-worthy. And to top it off she's very involved in humanitarian and activist work in addition to being a great writer (referring to her recent articles in Glamour) I have a feeling you and @GFC's comments have more to do with some irrational, personal dislike of Olivia than actual reviews of her performances. And the fact that both of you felt the need to bring up your opinions of her physical appearance in such a negative, vicious way says more about you than it does about her. Grow up.

  • Victor | June 26, 2014 2:15 PM

    There´s no doubt about it, Olivia wilde is a terrible actress and i´m tired of her blanck characters, now i undestand why House MD went from bad to worse when she was part of House, and the worst is that she doent even look good off screen

  • dylan | June 26, 2014 11:17 AM

    @GFC that comment is some sort of prank, right?

Email Updates