What a brouhaha. Brooklyn Papers put that rather lewd pix of Maggie G. from the film "Secretary" on the cover of last week’s paper and boy did they take the heat for it.
People around here went CRAZY. And the Papers got a whole bunch of letters from angry readers, who said that the BP went too far. They even heard from a former editor of the paper who said she’d never do something like that on her watch.
All week I heard from people who were P.O.ed about it. Most said they thought it was downright unneighborly, unfriendly and a cheap shot. A man, a parent at PS 321, said to me today: "Do you write for that paper that put that cheap shot of Maggie Gyllenhaal on the cover. I couldn’t believe it. Not very neighborly I’d say."
For all the people who were flabbergasted, there were probably some who enjoyed the picture. I found it interesting myself because I’ve never seen the movie.
It’s based on a brilliant short story by one of my favorite writers, Mary Gaitskill, about a secretary and her boss, a demanding lawyer, and the sexual, sadomasochistic relationship that ensues. It’s from a short story collection called "Bad Behavior," works of short fiction that are as bold and provoking as that picture of Maggie.
On Monday October 16th I have tickets to see Mary Gaitskill at the 92nd Street Y, where she’ll be reading and discussing her acclaimed new novel, Veronica. Maybe I should bring a copy of the Brooklyn Papers.
Anyway, I’ve wanted to see the movie and when I saw the picture instead of going bonkers I said to myself, "Oh that must be a still from that movie she made called "Secretary."
I also noticed that by Tuesday morning there were NO copies left at Key Food. Now Key Food receives something like 3000 papers every Friday. So I thought that either that was one popular issue of the Brooklyn Papers or someone decided to get rid of them.
I think the latter may be the case.
Well, Brooklyn Papers published a very nice apology today and the whole thing should just evaporate. Be gone. Shoo. Shoo. Bye Bye Brouhaha.
Somehow I doubt that.
I think the uproar over this is completely ridiculous. People can be really silly sometimes.
Yes, I noticed the cover, and thought it was a cheap shot – and very inappropriate. I mean talk about being opportunistic – I guess that dumb editor can really be dumb
what a flippant, shallow response to a corporate insult to our neighborhood, and how ditzy it makes you seem to be (“a photo from a movie. how cool”). have you always been an apologist for your paymasters? the brooklyn papers should have been more contrite, and should have apologized directly to everyone who was forced to look at its front page, and, specifically, to the object of its misogynistic, immature attack. for a newspaper to mumble ‘i’m sorry’ the way it did on its web site speaks volumes about its lack of professionalism. your enthusiastic ‘fiddle dee dee’ attitude also comes across loud and clear.