Jezebel: Law And Order

Speed Racer: Another Premiere, Another Hot Shot Of Eva Amurri

Jennifer — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:30:00 EDT

For the love of God: How many Speed Racer premieres is Warner Bros. scheduling?! The latest took place on Friday night as part of the Tribeca Film Festival. By now you know the routine: Christina Ricci, Emile Hirsch, Susan Sarandon, Miles Robbins, Eva Amurri, and that cute little kid who is also in the movie. But since this was the Tribeca Film Festival, there were also some kick-ass randoms present: Robert DeNiro and his wife Grace Hightower, Law & Order: Criminal Intent's Vincent D'Onofrio and his wife and son; Fred Durst (again!) and his girlfriend and, best of all, Stephen Colbert and his entire family. All of them, plus the Good, Bad and Ugly of what they wore, after the jump.

The Good:
Eva Amurri shows why the little black dress is what it is. Wow.

Emile Hirsch is definitely underdressed compared to his co-stars. But I'm a sucker for a stripey anything.

Llittle Paulie Litt is sorta my hero.

Susan Sarandon's leather coat is really ugly. But son Miles Robbins is so damn cute and clearly loves his mom so damn much that I forgive and forget all.

Could Stephen Colbert and his family be any cuter?! See, they all look smart in jeans. Emile Hirsch, take note.

Same goes for Vincent D'Onofrio and his wife and kid.

I think this is my favorite of Christina Ricci's premiere dresses to date. Smart and fun.

The Bad:
Grace Hightower, per usual, is always a class act. But Robert DeNiro looks like a total schlump. Would it kill him to wear pants that fit?

The Ugly:
I'm sorry: Why was Fred Durst there?

[Images via Bauer-Griffin and Getty.]

Virginia Is For Covers

Dodai — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:45:00 EDT

Horrors! We are living in a country where adults going to strip bars might actually see nipples. That's why Delegate John A. Cosgrove has sponsored a bill in Virginia to get pasties on topless dancers. The legislation, which goes into effect in July, says a business can have its mixed-beverage license suspended or revoked if there is "entertainment commonly called stripteasing, topless entertaining, or entertainment that has employees who are not clad both above and below the waist." Actually, the law already exists and has been around for a while, but authorities did not enforce it and club owners knew they could get away with having totally topless dancers. But thanks to Mr. Cosgrove — and tax dollars — we'll never have to worry about bare areolas in Virgina again. [Reason.com]

Is The "Duke Effect" Letting College Dudes Get Away With Rape?

Moe — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:40:57 EST

One of the reasons we're newly ena-"more"-ed with More magazine is that it has stories that require us to think, like the Decmeber issue's profile of Dolores Carr, Silicon Valley's embattled district attorney. Delores has prosecuted a lot of rape cases in her life, but recently she decided not to go ahead in prosecuting a high profile case that was sort of like the Duke case, in that it involved college athletes gang-raping a girl, but sort of not like the Duke case, in that it actually happened — they know because there were three female eyewitnesses. Also, the alleged victim was sort of more sympathetic than the one in the Duke case, because she was only seventeen and had never tried to scam anyone before. Okay, so: why did Dolores not go ahead with the case? She's saying that she would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was too drunk to consent to sex — because the victim was too drunk to remember anything. Sorta "Saudi" logic, right? Well, it gets more complicated.

The eyewitnesses — female college soccer players at the party, who saw the shit going down through a window and stormed in and took the kid to a hospital after the rape — were too far away to correctly identify who exactly was raping, and who was just watching. THROW THEM ALL IN JAIL, is what I say to that! But as we know from the heartwarming case of Jeffrey Marsalis, juries would not necessarily say the same thing. And as the National Law Journal recently pointed out, a "Duke effect" may be having a chilling effect on the prosecution of high-profile rape cases.

But I think it's more complicated than that: forcing a teenager to recall the events of a night she is probably very happy not remembering before a jury that might be thinking the little slut should have laid off the jungle juice is a tough thing to ask of any woman. A less tough thing to ask: do your jury duty.

(I am sooooo guilty of neglecting that last one.)

But yeah, what do you think? Bad feminist? Or chooser of battles?