Oh, Russell Brand. He’s got a lot of political ideals, many of which I either vaguely or heartily agree on, but sometimes he says stuff that just… eh, I dunno. It rubs me (and MANY people, I’m sure) the wrong way. His latest claim is that drug laws and the stigma against addicts caused Philip Seymour Hoffman‘s death last week from a heroin overdose. In a sense, I get where he’s going. We’d have been much less shocked if someone like Miley or Justin fell victim to their wild lifestyles; it would almost have been morbidly expected. Someone like PSH, who was a widely-respected actor whose lifestyle was kept private and never sensationalized, was a more unlikely victim of this awful fate. With you so far, Russ.
Here’s a bit of what he wrote for The Guardian:
Whilst routinely described as tragic, Hoffman’s death is insufficiently sad to be left un-supplemented in the mandatory posthumous scramble for salacious garnish; we will now be subjected to mourn-ography posing as analysis. I can assure you that there is no as yet undiscovered riddle in his domestic life or sex life, the man was a drug addict and his death inevitable.
A troubling component of this sad loss is the complete absence of hedonism. Like a lot of drug addicts, probably most, who “go over”, Hoffman was alone when he died. This is an inescapably bleak circumstance. When we reflect on Bieber’s Louis Vuitton embossed, Lamborghini cortege it is easy to equate addiction with indulgence and immorality. The great actor dying alone denies us this required narrative prang.
Addiction is a mental illness around which there is a great deal of confusion, which is hugely exacerbated by the laws that criminalise drug addicts.
If drugs are illegal people who use drugs are criminals. We have set our moral compass on this erroneous premise, and we have strayed so far off course that the landscape we now inhabit provides us with no solutions and greatly increases the problem.
People are going to use drugs; no self-respecting drug addict is even remotely deterred by prohibition. What prohibition achieves is an unregulated, criminal-controlled, sprawling, global mob-economy, where drug users, their families and society at large are all exposed to the worst conceivable version of this regrettably unavoidable problem.
I do think drug laws are useless when they apply to the user rather than the cartels that make millions selling misery and death to addicts, but we can’t just go and make everything legal. How is that going to halt addiction? While addicts may not be deterred by anti-drug laws, making it readily available on every corner is only going to make it more easily accessible and that certainly isn’t a recipe for getting clean. I’m not saying I have the answer – I certainly don’t, and it’s a complicated issue. Clearly Russell Brand, who has battled with all kinds of addiction for decades, knows a bit more about it than I do, but I just can’t say I agree.
What do you guys think?
February 7, 2014 at 8:30 am by Jennifer
Russell Brand has a seriously hard time with monogamy, but he’s giving it a go again, this time with Jemima Khan, the European editor-at-large for Vanity Fair and associate editor at The New Statesman. She’s brainy, and Russell likes that. He also likes that she’s physically attractive because he’s still only into “top crumpet”. Apparently this relationship is a whole new ballgame for Russell – which is exactly what he said about his marriage to Katy Perry – but let’s just go with it, shall we?
During an appearance on The Jonathan Ross Show, Russell explained:
“I’m very, very happy in a relationship that feels very different from anything I’ve experienced before.
“I feel like it’s grounded in friendship and a sort of love and it’s all well cool and exciting and stuff, but it feels different for me.”
“She’s a gorgeous, beautiful woman. I’m still superficial. I’ll still only go out with top crumpet. I’m going to be really kind in this relationship. I haven’t been out there trying to nail everyone.”
Well, that’s very special and all, but what a slap in the face to your ex-WIFE that you were out there “trying to nail everyone” while married. Real stand-up guy.
It’s so hard to like Russell Brand – which I very largely do, because I think he’s incredibly smart, funny, etc – because he acts like a total dickhead in terms of how he treats women. Of course, the women are dumb enough to get with him, so fair play on that, but come on!
Who knows, maybe this one will work out for him. HAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, couldn’t even keep a straight face there.
January 17, 2014 at 8:30 am by Jennifer
Katy Perry sat down with Marie Claire and told them everything about her love life, specifically, why she and now-boyfriend John Mayer took some time off. Personally, I’ve always thought that he broke up with her and not the other way around, but Ms. Perry makes it seem like she needed to take time away from Mayer to deal with feelings she had about ex-husband Russell Brand. From Marie Claire:
I took a break from my boyfriend, not one that I wanted. It was like a splash of cold water to search inward on what was going on with me. That is what led me to this new awakening, this realizing, If I don’t do some self-love, I’m not going to be able to keep the love that I want. I still needed to deal with all of my ex-husband stuff. I hadn’t.
It’s almost like if I kept on talking about it [the Russell Brand relationship], it would seem like I actually cared about it. I don’t.
I still think she and Brand broke up because his sex addiction came roaring back, but it’s just a theory.
She also talks about having kids:
I’m definitely not there yet, and I can’t plan that far in advance. When I decide to have a family, I’ll just want to be Mom for a little bit … [Brand] really wanted me to have children, and I knew I wasn’t ready—I think it was a way of control. I think it was part of, If I have a kid, then I would have to sacrifice—I’d have to be at home more. I really wanted to, but I knew I wasn’t ready for it. It wasn’t like, ‘Hey, let’s have a kid because we’re in love.’
Photos from the magazine shoot are below. Enjoy!
December 9, 2013 at 5:30 pm by Catherine St. Ives
Simon Cowell isn’t really concerned with much in life besides money and how much of it he can make and, I suppose, now his love child with his soon-to-be shotgun wife. That being said, I’m not really surprised that he doesn’t “get” Russell Brand‘s political passion and call for change and that he thinks the best way for Russell to fight “the man” is to give back all his money. Uh…….
Here’s what Cowell told Shortlist magazine:
“A revolution? He’s getting $10 million per movie. I mean, come on! Well, give your money back then, Russell.
“I always say that about people. Start off as you mean to go on. Donate all the money back to the revolution and then I’ll believe it. I’m living in a 10 million dollar mansion and I want a revolution? Give me a break.”
I sort get the point he’s TRYING to make, but I just don’t think it holds water. Here’s the thing: as Russell himself has pointed out, no one listens to the poor people. That’s the people he’s fighting for, and he’s doing it because while they’re fighting for themselves, it’s easy to shush people up who have no power. He’s using his platform – which, yes, comes with money – in order to try and MAKE the authorities listen. He’s much more visible than your average joe who works at a sanitation plant down the street.
Second of all, last I checked, Simon Cowell doesn’t have access to Russell’s personal accounts and therefore has no idea what kind of donations he makes or how much money he gives away to whatever cause. Saying that someone’s feelings are invalid because of how much money they have is absolutely ridiculous, so Simon Cowell needs to shut the fuck up.
Also, I’m shocked that I’m defending Russell Brand when I don’t even really like the guy very much, but I just feel like it was called for here. Oh, and below is the Newsnight interview Russell did that really kicked all this off – it’s well worth the watch.
December 5, 2013 at 10:30 am by Jennifer
Russell Brand? More like Russell Banned. Russell Brand is banned from entering South Africa, and he isn’t sure why. Some people think we ban him here at Evil Beet, but that’s totally not true — check out this Russell Brand appreciation post. So, we’re very sorry that Russell Brand can’t do his Rusell Brand thing in South Africa. There’s not a lot of details yet. Here’s what TMZ has:
Brand tweeted about the ban today saying his people thought things had been worked out with S.A. officials … but when Russell landed, airport staff said he couldn’t stay.
It’s unclear why he’s not allowed in South Africa … but the “Get Him to the Greek” star claimed the same thing happened to him in Canada back in ’11.
Oh man, Russell, what have you been up to?
P.S. Russell Brand.
November 15, 2013 at 4:30 pm by Catherine St. Ives
You’ve got to give it to Russell Brand – he’s not just a pretty face (or, according to some, he’s not a pretty face at all), he also knows his shit and is passionate about politics. That’s why, when he turned up at the GQ Men of the Year Awards in London this week, he called out the city’s mayor, Boris Johnson (who collected the Politician of the Year trophy, despite the fact that no one else could have really won it) as well as the event’s sponsor, Hugo Boss. Shit got real. There was a Nazi salute involved.
Here’s Brand’s speech (via DS):
“Glad to grace the stage where Boris Johnson has just made light of the use of chemical weapons in Syria,” Brand started. “Meaning that GQ can now stand for genocide quips.
“I mention that only to make the next comment a bit lighter because if any of you know a little bit about history and fashion, you’ll know Hugo Boss made the uniforms for the Nazis.
“But they did look f**king fantastic, let’s face it, while they were killing people on the basis of their religion and sexuality.”
Brand reportedly then saluted the crowd before alluding to Hitler by saying: “He might not know it [but] he’s flying off the shelves.”
Oh, dear. The Sun claims that Brand was thrown out soon after after shouting “Nazi sympathisers!” And, of course, Russell needed the last word, so he headed to Twitter with the following message on Wednesday:
— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 4, 2013
Huh. Fair enough. I don’t know the history of the situation, to be honest. And, while I think it’s disgusting if what he’s saying is true, why head out to the event of something you’re against just to raise hell? I mean, I suppose he made an impact, but it just seems a bit intense.