Internet turns on Jamie Lee Curtis over ‘insane' red carpet outburst
Curtis was a guest at the recent Las Culturistas Culture Awards at the Orpheum Theatre in Los Angeles. The tongue-in-cheek pop culture themed awards (some sample categories: the Woman of a Certain Age Award and Best Title for the Next Bridget Jones) are the brainchild of comedians and podcasters Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers.
The pair were on the red carpet outside the Orpheum, answering some questions for media outlet Vulture, who'd asked them to recite some iconic movie lines into the camera.
Saturday Night Live star Yang was giving it his best Julia Roberts as Erin Brokovich, delivering the line 'I'm not talkin' to you, b**ch!', when suddenly Curtis appeared beside them, interuppting the vox pop and looking agitated.
'We're quoting Julia Roberts,' Rogers explained, perhaps worried Curtis had thought that particular quote was directed at her.
But the Freakier Friday star stood between the comedians and the camera, her arms outstretched, and gave them a firm direction: 'Bring the whole f**king thing down.'
She seemed completely unaware that she was talking to the hosts and organisers of the event she was at – and was about to spend several hours watching them on stage.
'You're going to hate this show then,' Yang quipped. 'We're going to be pitching to the rafters.'
Rogers gave Curtis some cheeky advice in return: 'Maybe you could bring it up?'
Those who watched the moment on social media were shocked by Curtis' behaviour, with some asking if the actress was attempting a 'bit' or whether she was serious.
'The audacity to interrupt someone's interview at Their Own Award Show just to shush them is insane,' one person tweeted.
Another said the moment 'repulsed' them – 'Doing this to [Rogers and Yang] at their own event?'
One person under Vulture's post dubbed Curtis 'the ultimate Karen' – a tag that's followed her after a string of minor controversies in recent years.
She publicly apologised in August last year after slamming Marvel at Comic-Con, and earlier in 2024 sparked a bizarre feud with Bella Ramsey over a joke the young actor made while presenting an award at the Critics Choice Awards.
She copped further backlash in January of this year when she likened the wildfires that had decimated whole neighbourhoods in Los Angeles to the ongoing war in Gaza.
The Last Showgirl.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Is it OK to shame the Coldplay kiss cam couple?
Sam Hawley: If you hadn't realised by now that cameras are everywhere, so-called Coldplay-gate is a great reminder. And the Kisscam vision of a canoodling couple at the concert, who are apparently having an affair, is proof again how quickly word can travel on social media. Saying it went viral is an understatement. Today, political scientists from Loyola University in Chicago, Jennifer Forstall, on public shaming and when it can sometimes be a good thing. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Jennifer, we better start with a little recap from the Coldplay concert last week in Boston. I think at this point we all feel like we were there. Jennifer Forestal: Right, yeah. Social media will do that. Sam Hawley: Yes, exactly. It's got a fair bit of attention. So it was during this concert that Chris Martin, Coldplay's frontman, announced that he would be singing to a select few people in the crowd using cameras to say hello to members of the audience. Just tell me what happened after that. Jennifer Forestal: Right. So as I understand it, the Kisscam, as it's often called, is sort of going through the crowd, catching couples. Chris Martin, Coldplay lead singer: We'd like to say hello to some of you in the crowd. How we're going to do that is we're going to use our cameras and put some of you on the big screen. Jennifer Forestal: And it happened upon a couple that was embracing and then very quickly realized the camera was on them and turned away, you know, ducked under the cover. Chris Martin, Coldplay lead singer: All right, come on, you're OK? Uh-oh, what? Either they're having an affair or they're just very shy. Jennifer Forestal: And it turned out that he was absolutely right. Sam Hawley: Yeah, what a moment. OK, then the identities, of course, of this couple in the vision is confirmed as Andy Byron, who's a married chief executive of a tech company called Astronomer and Kristen Cabot, the company's chief people officer, who, by the way, is not his wife. And things haven't been going so well for them since then, have they? Jennifer Forestal: That's right. I think Andy Byron was put on leave. I think maybe actually they both were put on leave pending investigation by the company. And then we've quickly found out that Andy Byron submitted his resignation, which was accepted. News report: Astronomer said in a statement that Andy Byron had tended his resignation and the board of directors have accepted that resignation. This clip went viral. Jennifer Forestal: I think the jury is still out on what's happening with Kristen Cabot. I believe she's still employed with the company right now, but we'll see what happens there as well. Sam Hawley: Yeah, and of course, this vision, it has been beamed around the world. The original footage was taken by a TikTok user known as Instaagrace. And that vision that she posted has been viewed 124 million times. It's pretty extraordinary. Jennifer Forestal: It really is. I think it speaks to just the kind of virality that we can see on these technologies these days. Part of it is just kind of the, it's salacious. The way that we all kind of like to watch disasters unfold in front of us. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that there's a kind of turn against sort of CEOs and wealthy elites more generally. So it feels kind of nice to see them sort of, see their life get ruined in front of our eyes. But at the end of the day, really, I think it's just another example of the sort of strife and effect, right? That if they hadn't done anything, if they would have just stayed sort of embracing and sort of waved at the camera, we wouldn't have thought twice about it. But it's the fact that they sort of reacted the way that they did that called attention to the fact that they were perhaps doing something wrong, which, again, if they would have just, you know, hugged each other and moved on, the camera would have gone to the next person. Chris Martin wouldn't have said anything. And we wouldn't be talking about this today. Sam Hawley: And the memes, you know, there's so many of them going around. They're calling it Coldplaygate. Jennifer Forestal: You know, they just kind of all are all over the place and they're all very funny. And I think some of what I think is so striking about this is that, to me, has been picked up in this kind of very funny way where it's not necessarily attacking the people involved, but it's kind of making light of the general situation and putting other people in that kind of circumstances rather than sort of going after the two people that were involved directly. Sam Hawley: The woman who posted this on TikTok, Grace Springer, she told The Sun newspaper that part of her feels bad for turning these people's lives upside down. But she says, play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. But she also said on TikTok that she's glad people are entertained, but she's really urged them to keep in mind the CEO's wife and his family. Grace Springer, TikTok user: But at the end of the day, Andy's wife and his family, they're very real people. So just keep that in mind. Jennifer Forestal: Yeah, of course. And I mean, you know, I've seen this is sort of a topic of debate, especially in this particular instance of public shaming or cancel culture, whatever you want to call it, is that these this particular instance happened in a public forum. You know, kiss cams are not necessarily an unusual invasion of privacy. They've been around for decades or pretty familiar to anybody who's been to a sporting event or a rock show or anything like that. So, you know, there's some argument to the point that's like, you know, if you are going to show up in a concert of 60,000 people, you know, don't expect to see privacy. It's not like they were filmed in their privacy of their own home or in a place that you might expect to get some sort of privacy. On the other hand, you know, it is sort of pointing out the just general surveillance state that we all live under these days, right? That anything can go viral, anything can be filmed by anybody else and uploaded to social media where it could get picked up and viewed by millions. And so I think there's a lot to consider. You know, it's not necessarily a straightforward, you know, they did something wrong and they should pay or they're completely victims in the situation. I just it's I just think it's complicated. Sam Hawley: Well, Jennifer, let's just unpack this a bit more, because as you say, it is actually rather complicated. This is basically public shaming, isn't it? It is. Just explain that a bit more. Jennifer Forestal: Yeah. So public shaming is oftentimes a general term that we use when people have violated some sort of social norm and are sort of publicly shamed, meaning they're like put through the ringer publicly. People sort of admonish them for doing this, whatever sort of violation it is. And so, you know, in a lot of ways, oftentimes when we think about public shaming in a digital age, it's called cancel culture. We think of things like going viral on Twitter, people being racist and things like that. And so what we're seeing here is in some ways an example of public shaming in the sense that this is a couple who have violated a norm of monogamy, presumably, and are sort of being publicly rebuked for going outside of the standard modes of behavior. And so people are sort of taking them to task and ridiculing them for that norm violation. And so, you know, some people would say that this is a violation of their privacy, that this is an overreaction or an inappropriate public reaction. And others would say, you know, it's exactly what they deserve for violating a social norm of monogamy. Sam Hawley: But Byron, he's hardly Jeffrey Epstein, right? Or Harvey Weinstein. He's just some guy who's gone to a concert. And people have deemed that he's behaved badly, but it seems pretty over the top, the amount of interest in him. Jennifer Forestal: Yeah, this is oftentimes one of the criticisms that we see of online public shaming in particular, right? That the scale of social media, the fact that so many people can jump on something so small, the fact that things can go public that wouldn't ordinarily be public, that this is a kind of violation or a kind of pathology of public shaming, that it's no longer working the way we might have in the past intended it to, where people, you know, broke a rule, were shamed for it, they changed their behavior and were welcomed back into the fold. And so, yeah, a lot of people would say this is the problem with cancel culture is that it incentivizes these overreactions, that their mob rule kind of goes unchecked, that there's no accountability for people who shame. And so they kind of, you know, go after people with no real seeming concern about what they might be doing to the victim of public shaming. And, you know, there's a lot to be said for that argument. I think that that is right in a lot of ways. I don't, you know, I think that there is a role for public shaming in public life. And I think it's worth thinking about sort of what is going on in cases of online public shaming, where the scale, the accountability mechanisms are maybe missing to make it valuable. Sam Hawley: Mm, all right. So you believe that public shaming is not bad in all cases. So just give me some examples when in fact it has led to good. Jennifer Forestal: So there are some violations that we, you know, wouldn't want to see people engage in, but we don't want the state to be involved in either. Right. So we don't want people to, for example, lie to their friends, but we also don't want them to be punished, like by jail if they are. In order to make sure that people keep their promises, we would publicly shame the people that don't. And then they would understand that that's a problem. Other people watching the public shaming would understand that they too would be shamed if they lie to their friends. And so we would presumably establish the social norm of not doing that. Other things that are very good candidates for public shaming are things where the state won't, for whatever reason, get involved. So there's a great book by a woman named Jennifer Jacquet about how public shaming has really been effective to use for shaming companies or corporations. So companies are oftentimes outside. They're sometimes not regulated maybe to the extent that people would want. And so public shaming campaigns can oftentimes get corporations to act in ways that people would like to see them act without necessarily getting the state involved in regulating them. Sam Hawley: Well, we do live in a world, Jennifer, where it can take a very long time to build up a reputation, but a moment to lose it. Do you think there is actually a lesson in all of this for us? Jennifer Forestal: I think that there's probably a few lessons, maybe not all of which are actionable. You know, the first is that there's a kind of a pragmatic warning in this, which is, you know, for better or worse, people are watching you in public spaces and you can get filmed doing whatever you do. And so people should probably be aware of that. Again, I'm not sure that that's necessarily a good thing or the kind of world that we want to live in, but it is the world that we do live in. And so it's important that people just, you know, remember that when they go about their daily business. More sort of philosophically, I think that it's important to when we think about public shaming and when we think about people going viral, it is also important to remember that those are real people. You know, what seems to one person to just be a kind of joke that they throw off into a tweet doesn't matter as much from that perspective. But from the perspective of the butt of the joke, it's 100,000 mean comments or 100,000 jokes at your expense. And that can oftentimes do more damage than I think we tend to think about when it's just us writing our individual response. Also thinking about ourselves in terms of the sort of collectives that we are in online. Social media platforms are oftentimes not designed to help us think about ourselves as part of communities or collectives, but we are. And so I think, again, thinking a little bit more about our online presence as part of communities rather than as individual or isolated actions is also something to keep in mind as well. Sam Hawley: What do you think? Do you think this couple deserved the level of public shaming that they were exposed to? Jennifer Forestal: You know, I don't. I don't. Probably not. No. But I will say this. It was striking to me as someone who's been thinking about this for a while that I actually don't think that Andy Byron got the same level of kind of vitriolic response that other victims of public shaming have. So if you think about high profile cases of public shaming in the past, people like Justine Sacco, who had the kind of racist South Africa tweet, or Amy Cooper, who had an altercation with a Black man in Central Park a few years ago, that these women in particular were dragged through the mud. They wereâ€'death threats were sent to them. They faced all sorts of personal attacks in a way that I have not heard is true of Andy Byron. So there, I think, is also an important thing to consider here in terms of gender, which is how your social position can sometimes insulate you from the effects of public shaming and what kinds of people are oftentimes more vulnerable to these kinds of situations. And so while I wouldn't say that anyone is sort of deserving of this kind of attack, especially individuals like that, I also am sort of aware and cognizant of the fact that different people in different social positions sort of react to or have a different response to that kind of situation. Sam Hawley: And also, I guess, the lesson, the big one, is if you don't want to be seen with someone at a big public event, perhaps don't go to that event with that person. Jennifer Forestal: Yeah, or again, maybe just play it cool. If you're caught doing something that you don't want people to react to, don't react to it yourself. Sam Hawley: Yeah, the poker face would have gone a long way. Jennifer, thank you so much. Jennifer Forestal: Of course. Thank you for having me. Sam Hawley: Jennifer Forstall is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Loyola University in Chicago. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
News.com.au
11 hours ago
- News.com.au
Aussie star lands big role in The Devil Wears Prada 2: report
A popular Aussie star has reportedly joined the sequel to The Devil Wears Prada in a very significant role. Patrick Brammall, 49, best known as Gordon in Colin From Accounts, is set to play the love interest for Anne Hathaway's Andy Sachs. Entertainment Weekly broke the news earlier this week after previously reporting that Andy's boyfriend from the 2006 original, Nate (Adrien Grenier), would not be in the long-awaited sequel. Brammall is yet to confirm the news. In the almost 20 years since The Devil Wears Prada was released, Nate has become an increasingly controversial character, with many agreeing his attitude toward Andy's career made him the real villain of the story. Grenier has since addressed the backlash himself, telling EW he understood the negativity toward Nate. 'When that whole thing [about Nate being the 'real villain' of the film] first came out, I couldn't get my head around it. I didn't understand it. Perhaps it was because I wasn't mature as a man, just as Nate probably could've used a little growing up,' he said in June 2021. 'I was just as immature as him at the time, so I couldn't see his shortcomings, but, after taking time to reflect and much deliberation online, I can realise the truth in that perspective. Nate hadn't grown up, but Andy had … she needed more out of life, and she was achieving it. 'He couldn't support her like she needed because he was a fragile, wounded boy,' Grenier said of his controversial character. 'On behalf of all the Nates out there: Come on! Step it up.' In The Devil Wears Prada, Andy and Nate break up after repeatedly clashing over priorities as her career skyrockets, but later reconnect – seemingly as friends – when they meet up after she finally quits her job. Joining the cast along with Brammall is My Crazy Ex-Girlfriend 's Rachel Bloom, Lucy Liu, Justin Theroux and B.J. Novak, although details of their roles have been kept quiet. Meanwhile, original stars Hathaway, Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci were previously confirmed to reprise their roles. According to Variety, the sequel 'follows Priestly as she navigates her career amid the decline of traditional magazine publishing and as she faces off against Blunt's character, now a high-powered executive for a luxury group with advertising dollars that Priestly desperately needs.'
News.com.au
14 hours ago
- News.com.au
Cancelled TV host Stephen Colbert tells Donald Trump to ‘go f*** yourself'
Stephen Colbert had an unflinching message for US President Donald Trump in his first broadcast since his Late Show was cancelled amid a political firestorm — 'the gloves are off.' Colbert, who addressed the cancellation of his show by a broadcaster that has been widely accused of seeking to curry favour with Mr Trump for business reasons, came out swinging — telling Trump to 'go f*** yourself.' The Late Show, a storied US TV franchise dating back to 1993 when it was hosted by David Letterman, will go off the air in May 2026 following a surprise announcement by broadcaster CBS last week. The channel is part of Paramount, which is in the throes of an $US8 billion ($A12.3 billion) takeover that requires approval by the Trump-controlled Federal Communications Commission. It pulled the plug three days after Colbert skewered CBS for settling a lawsuit with Mr Trump. He accused it of paying what he termed a 'a big fat bribe' of $US16 million ($A24.6 million) to the president for what he called 'deceptive' editing of an interview with his 2024 election opponent, former vice president Kamala Harris. Mr Trump revelled in the firing of one of his most prolific detractors, posting on his Truth Social platform that 'I absolutely love that Colbert was fired.' Colbert joked Monday that it had always been his dream starting out as an improv comic in Chicago in the 1980s to have a sitting president celebrate the end of his career. He also disputed the logic of CBS, which insisted the cancellation was 'purely a financial decision.' He said that in an anonymous leak over the weekend, CBS had appeared to suggest his show lost $US40 million ($A61.4 million) last year. Colbert joked that he could account for losing $US24 million annually – but wasn't to blame for the other $US16 million, a reference to CBS News's settlement with Mr Trump. Monday's cold open was an unsparing riff on Mr Trump demanding that the Washington Commanders change its name back to its former name, which was widely considered a slur against Native Americans. The segment suggested Mr Trump sought to rename the franchise the 'Washington Epsteins', in reference to pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein whom it has been widely reported was close to Mr Trump. Colbert returned to this topic after addressing his show's cancellation, proclaiming that they had killed his show but not him, and doing a deep dive on reporting about just how close Mr Trump and Epstein were. It was a formula that would have been familiar to fans of the show: the deadly serious leavened with humour and quick wit. Outside the taping at Midtown Manhattan's Ed Sullivan theatre, protesters held placards that said 'Colbert Stays! Trump Must Go!' Audience member Elizabeth Kott, a 48-year-old high school teacher, called Colbert's firing 'terrible.' 'It's really awful that it's come to that in this country, where companies feel the need to obey in advance. It's really awful,' she told AFP. 'A plague on CBS' Colbert's lead guest Monday, acclaimed actress Sandra Oh, did not hold back, proclaiming a 'plague on CBS and Paramount' – the network on which Colbert's channel is broadcast and its media giant proprietor. Colbert's lip trembled as Oh paid tribute to his work speaking truth to power while staying funny. His other guest, actor Dave Franco, said he had loved Colbert's work in everything from The Daily Show to The Colbert Report and then The Late Show. It was on The Daily Show, under the supervision of comic 'anchor' Jon Stewart, that Colbert perfected his alter-ego – a blowhard conservative reporter whose studied ignorance parodied actual right-wing broadcasters night after night. He moved up to a show of his own on the same network, Comedy Central, which was then part of Viacom and today is part of Paramount. Before long he took one of the most coveted chairs in US television – host of the CBS late-night slot. Colbert dropped his arrogant conservative persona and cultivated a reputation as one of the most trusted yet funniest figures on US television. Through the coronavirus pandemic he became a reassuring presence for millions, broadcasting from a spare room in his house and narrating the challenges he faced alongside his wife Evelyn. He also became an arch-critic of Mr Trump, skewering the president for everything from his policies to his fondness for Hannibal Lecter. Skipping a promised question and answer session following the taping of Monday's show, Colbert told his studio audience that 'I was nervous coming out here.'
