by RIP RENSE
Jan. 20, 2006
Witherspoon, Iím behind you, baby.
Iím always behind anyone
with principle and ethics and pride and guts, and thatís what youíve got,
I must now warn readers
that the following information is not merely shocking, not merely
unsettling, not merely appalling, but nothing short of devastating. After reading this,
you might want to look at photos of mangled corpses in Iraq, or the floating
dead of New Orleans, or starving AIDS-ridden children in Africa, for relief.
If you don't wish to read
further, I will understand.
Reese Witherspoon, one of our countryís greatest artists, a woman of
such standing and achievement as to practically warrant the title,
American Princess, has been violated. No less a term will do.
What Witherspoon has
suffered is such a degradation, such an assault on her reputation, work,
spirit, and very person, that one wonders how she will ever pursue her
career again, let alone show her dollface at an awards ceremony. It will
take almost unimaginable character and courage to recover. Calling Oprah!
has---this is difficult to even write---been made to wear a dress that. . .
No, I canít go on. Itís just
Okay, okay, I realize
that you, the public, have a right to the truth of this dreadful matter,
no matter how taxing it is to report. So, with a deep breath and a heavy
heart, I must tell you that. . .
Reese has been made to
wear a dress that----that---someone else had already worn!
Yes, I know how you feel.
Please take as much time as you need to compose yourself, then read on. Iím
half-way through a box of Kleenex, myself.
Witherspoon wore a
Chanel gown to the Golden Globes this past week, and---oh, this is
tough---it had already been worn by Kirsten Dunst to the Golden Globes in 2003!
Now donít give me all
that crap about Iraq and genocide in Africa and kidnapped journalists and
Bin-Ladenís latest threat and Iranís nukes. Iíve got my priorities straight,
not you. Iím talking about news here. Iím talking about the real world. Iím
talking about fashion.
Yes, the dress with the
glowing form-fitting torso that reminds one of Star Trek alien skin, and the
flouncy, square-dancy, pleated skirt-like bottom portion was. . .get me a
drink---recycled. A rerun.
The renowned Ms.Witherspoon was re-gowned.
Reese spooned her peanut
butter cups right into the bustline once inhabited by the Dunst dugs. A
withering insult? I dare say! But no, says Chanel, it was just an. . .accident.
Yeah, right, and that
volcanic eruption in Alaska last week was just an accident (heh heh.)
The regowned Miss Reese.
Kirsten: Who dunst it?
apologizes for the oversight that Reese Witherspoonís dress was previously
worn to a Golden Globes after-party three years ago,Ē was part of the
companyís official statement.
Note how this
sly corporation tries to transparently soften the "mistake," by
implying that because Dunst only wore it to an ďafter partyĒ (while
Witherspoon sauntered right on to the cherished Red Carpet), this is somehow less of a
catastrophe. Ha! Shameless. And speaking of shameless, the company then gets
down on its knees:
ďWe are honored that
Reese chose to wear Chanel and thought she looked beautiful. We congratulate
her on her well-deserved win.Ē
dare they call Witherspoon ďbeautiful?Ē This woman is
sunshine in human form. Where she walks, roses should spring up, birdies
should chirp and do the boogaloo. I have it on authority that no one has
ever, ever once seen Reese enter a bathroom. My God,
for all the damage done, she might as well have appeared on the Red
Carpet dressed like some dirt-encrusted, fly-engulfed, distended-bellied Third World
orphan! Sue, girlfriend!
Well, I know this has
been difficult, loyal readers, so I want to reward you now with some good
news. Yes, there is a silver lining in this Golden cloud.
Reese is going to boycott
Her publicist, Nancy
Ryder, says that Reese and all her other clients---including two of our
other precious national treasures, J. Lo and Renee Zellweger---will absolutely refuse
to slip a single arm through another Chanel sleeve!
Wow! Just when you
thought everyone was a sellout! Just when you thought Jack Abramoff had
corrupted the whole world! Just when you thought no one stood for anything
important anymore! Just when you thought people would eat live spiders and
dive into vats of cow entrails for a few thousand bucks!
Along comes Princess
Reese. Yes, Iíll say it right here---letís create our own royalty in
this country---quick, before Bush does---and who better to name Princess of the United
States than our principled, brave, undaunted Reese?
Boycott away! You go,
girl! Change the Chanel!
This must be the most
thrilling civil disobedience since Selma. Somewhere, Ghandi is grinning
toothlessly. Can the inner cities be far behind? Get Jesse in on this. We
shall overcome. . .
Of course, I think it is
a tribute to the genteel and forgiving nature of our
fair Princess, that she is merely symbolically bitch-slapping the haute-y
corporate designer. She could have said something
herself, instead of graciously allowing a publicist to speak for her.
Just think of the damage
that an actual statement from Her Witherspoonness might have done.
Chanel No. 5? Chanel No. Zero.
Especially when you consider an additional trauma she is suffering. Get this:
was this remarkable woman subjected to the indignity of donning used duds,
but her hair style was practically identical to Dunstís 2003 Ďdo!
Double whammy! What? Yes, of COURSE it was a coincidence! Itís just that
the gown called for wearing oneís locks up and back---thatís Taste 101, dawg.
But that brings up the
real problem here:
all over the country---nay, around the world---that the less civilized,
the less knowledgeable, the less cultured, the less. . .coutured are
understandably confused by the Witherspoon/Dunst Dust-Up. Call it Gowngate.
Yes, the clucking about conspiracies has begun---and well, come to think of
it, why shouldn't it?
I mean, why did
they wear the same dress? Did Chanel set out to destroy Witherspoonís
career? Donít laugh---the gossip site Jossip.com thinks so! ďThose sneaky
French beeotches over at Chanel tricked our dear Reese Witherspoon,Ē
Jossip said, ďinto wearing a three-year-old dress they claimed was vintage
to the Golden Globes! Every fashion queen knows that three years does not
Or maybe it was Dunst who set
out to ruin Witherspoon! Catfight! Blonde on Blonde! Umm. . .or
did Chanel conspire with Dunst to undermine Witherspoonís Aryan
supremacy? Could Al-Qaeda be involved? Is this the new attack on America Bin-Laden
warned about? Is it a conspiracy to bring down all decent fashion and
replace gowns with burkas? Let's get Art Bell on this! And keep an eye on
our dear Reese, please! One has to wonder if the dress might have contained.
. .agents. . .placed their by Dunst---or Chanel---or Pat Robertson---that
could affect Reeseís health. I mean, was the gown even dry-cleaned after
Dunst occupied it? Gasp! Scabies! Ringworm!
Oh, the horror, the
BACK TO PAGE ONE