Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Julia: Esther, Who Was So Great in Guys and Dolls Off-Broadway in 1958




Seriously, does she not look like some old character actress who decided to pull out one of her old stage costumes, plaster on the stage makeup, leave her cats behind in the one-bedroom apartment on the Lower East Side and pose for some annual cast reunion newsletter?

66 comments:

  1. I see good ole' Bernie Madoff was out for a stroll during this shoot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They really make me sad. Julia, is this your intent?

    It's the whole 'sad clown' thing, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Arranging photo-shoots for yourself is like throwing a surprise birthday party for yourself. So beyond pathetic that Julia thinks, "Hey, if no magazine is interested in photographing me, I guess I'll just do it myself!"

    The desperation is just really, really freakish.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Absolutely, Dahling and to make it even worse the pictures taken by a pseudo-professional are really, really bad. Nothing you would ever want to surface if you are as image paranoid as JA is. I really don't know why she gave the jumping one to the tutu people (too lazy to look up the name in the other thread).
    Living pathetically once again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. that 1st pic is stressing me out! i get so nervous when people are jumping like that in heels.

    ReplyDelete
  6. these photo are great, u haters need to get a life

    ReplyDelete
  7. I used to think (once upon a very long time) that I wanted Julia's calves. I will keep my chicken legs and never complain again. Whoever said they were slimmed down through photoshop, very plausible, but she's also posing/angling her leg HARD in that second shot. Tension in leg, common trick she no doubt practiced to death.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 6:39 -- I was the one that said her calves were photoshopped. I don't think she has a calve-slimming trick for photos, as in every other photo her calves look like small melons inserted underneath the skin.

    It's true that people don't see themselves as they really are. Like that study that showed 74% of Americans consider themselves "above average" in attractiveness. Julia looks in the mirror and sees the same face and body that she had 2 years ago. If she really saw herself for who she is now, she wouldn't be so quick to arrange photo-shoots.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ' ... bet your bottom dollar that tomORROW ... '

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't think her legs are fat at all but I can see why she didn't post up these shots. Yikes. Anyone else think it's weird that she didn't? She spent an enormous amount of time hyping up this shoot and twittering about it. If it were meant "just for her", I highly doubt she'd have been so vocal. I know, silly of me to say given who we're talking about here. Just a little strange to me, and I think the reason was dissatifaction with the final product. She doesn't owe the photog much of anything - he was happy to oblige in hopes of boosting his port or getting publicity - but she definitely owed the tutu-makers some resulting photos; it wouldn't surprise me if her tutu was free or discounted.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This site kills me, honestly. Now all I can see is Julia jumping up and then coming down wrong and spraining her ankle just as Bernie Madoff walks by and doing it all for a free tutu.

    Julia Allison - feel the LOVE.

    ReplyDelete
  12. narcissist headbandApril 8, 2009 at 7:10 PM

    the second photo is crazed-scary. she looks deranged. i'm not even snarking here, i'm seriously disturbed and sad for her looking at that pic!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The pics are seriously scary. That bottom one with the tranny make up and the sweet little bow in the hair is really...sad.

    Also, McDonald is a shitty photog. I have taken better pictures of that sculpture with a disposable camera.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 7:11

    It's a statue not a sculpture. Gawd, didn't you get Julia's memo about that?

    ReplyDelete
  15. She looks mentally retarded in these. Sorry to say, because I like mentally retarded folk. But seriously, she looks like a special needs adult. The balloons, the umbrella for no reason. Deranged.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That first shot especially is quite valuable. I can use it to explain, without words, why I so obsessively hate this freak of nature. It's all right there. You know why Julia Allison sucks? Because this picture. And it will all make sense to any non-observer of JA phenomena.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes somehow, she's still single. THe mind reels.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The shots are absolutely poorly done.

    They are out of focus and the flash is improperly used. Completely flat- no depth of field- so his lenses are cheap. The tone is way too cool. Completely amateur and now I know why he does shit for free.

    ReplyDelete
  19. He shot these way to far away for the quality of lens he appears to have. Flash is ridiculous and probably did not even need to be used in most cases (would have looked better). There is no composition at all which sux.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon7:18: You are so bang on with this comment. It explains any and all loathing of the woman. Honestly, what non-celebrity grown adult hires a photographer and DOES this?? Imagine the thought process behind it. "I know what I'll do for myself on my birthday this year! Since I don't get asked to do photo shoots anymore, I'll hire a photographer and do my OWN photo shoot!"

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm sorry, but I cannot contain myself. THIS CREATURE IS TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OLD!!!!!!! WHAT. THE. FUCK?

    ReplyDelete
  22. That umbrella in that second photos is really annoying me. I mean her fucking cakey baby jane face is too but the umbrella just throws off everything and makes her even more old lady in little baby doll costume. She looks like a BDSM loving sub girlfriend. Her 86 year old bernie madoff bf in the background and her faerie Kind McDonald behind the lens.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "You're gonna make it after all!"

    That freak aspires to live inside a sitcom title sequence.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gross. I bet she wanted to have this "photo shoot" in the middle of Midtown so people would stop and look on and wonder who she was.

    Bloggers in general need to stop referring to picture taking like this as "photo shoots." Emily Gould's wannabe sexy bedroom eyes shot was a photo shoot. This and ones like it are just cheap ways for nobody bloggers to feel famous.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Holy shit this Michael McDonald is a SHIT photographer. Like, so, SO bad.

    OMG. It boggles.

    ReplyDelete
  26. My calves are not spectacular, but at least I don't wear tutus in public! These photos are the visual equivalent of SO. HAPPY. RIGHT. NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ha! "Hire" assumes she paid his ass. NO WAY. These utterly shitty photos had to have been freebies. Hence why MM is always begging for PAID WORK on hit Twatter. (Yes, i spelled it like that on purpose).

    ReplyDelete
  28. So I guess we should expect an I'm. So. Happy. post soon. She has set herself a new project (photos of every coffee she drinks ...yawn), is reminiscing about exes (is she directing her not Alex, not Dan comments at RBNS?), posting wedding photos, getting in touch with old friends and looking at old photos of herself.

    All these actions point to Julia feeling discontent with her current situation - single, friendless and with no discipline to reinvigorate her stalled career.

    It's too hard to look honestly at where she's at so she'll turn to the tried and true "Happy! Happy! Happy!"

    Jules, no one will love you till you love yourself first.

    ReplyDelete
  29. what is the cat wailing in this video?

    http://vimeo.com/2912073

    ReplyDelete
  30. Esther forgot to unstick that maxi pad from her head before the photo shoot.

    ReplyDelete
  31. She looks like a geisha in these.

    ReplyDelete
  32. For some reason the tutu-like thing makes me think of country line dancing. But I hate to say that as I think line dancing deserves better.

    ReplyDelete
  33. blog.juliaallison.com:

    OCTOBER 19, 2007

    strange.

    I was going to go to sleep early tonight (under the covers at 10:30 - a RECORD), but something prompted me to get up and turn on my laptop. And then I glanced over at my phone, on silent (it's always on silent), and I saw a number which hadn't called me in five months ...
    He always said he would call when I finally moved out of my old boyfriend's place, and he had seen the Vimeo video I shot - as an odd coincidence, I was wearing the emerald earrings he gave me last Christmas. I guess that's what prompted him to call.

    It was so weird to hear his voice. But what was even more odd was that I didn't feel ... the way I thought I would. I was so angry and hurt when he stopped speaking to me, but god, now I'm incredibly glad he did. It was the only way to really move on. I mean, I care about him, I always will. I still think about him. But I'm pretty happy right now, and despite my continuing commitment-phobia, I'm enjoying my current love life.
    I used to think that when I felt emotions about men while I was in relationships, that was the way things were and they would always be that way - because I felt them so strongly! They HAD to be true! I was CONVINCED I would marry A--. Then I was CONVINCED I would marry M---. And now? I'm no longer convinced of anything. (For the record, those are the only two men I've ever considered marrying. And yeah, neither are my ex-fiance. The irony does not escape me.)

    I can't decide if the realization that it's difficult to trust yourself or your feelings in love is frightening and sort of depressing, or if it's empowering and sort of a relief. Maybe a little of both. I think the end result is that I'm more likely to enjoy the moments of falling and being in love, because I know they're ephemeral ... you might as well savor them while you can, right?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jack the BulldogApril 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM

    Does anyone look at old photos with the same obsessive mania that Julia Allison Baugher appears to brings to the activity? I have old photos of my childhood, past loves, etc., but I don't pull them out every two weeks and post snapshots of long ago. She's like some old chorus girl or rockette living on her memories. The bitch is only 28 but she reminds me of Norma Desmond, Baby Jane Hudson, Ginger Rogers and Mae West in their ancient years, and on a good day, Naomi Watts's character in Mulholland Drive. Lynch would have a field day with this nutcase.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jack the Bulldog,

    In Lynch's world, though, she would bray backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 9:44 Bulldog... with a couple of kids Nora Desomond Jones??

    Okay I need sleep if I am telepathically spaziing Beetles..

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Um, wtf TJ? That's creepy. It's comments like that that turn this place from witty and snarky into borderline psychotic.

    ReplyDelete
  39. TJ, TMI weekly.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Apparently my dadaist comment wasn't all to appealing. I'll retire for the evening with meds in hand and head hung low.

    ReplyDelete
  41. TJ,

    We still <3 you though. If you want another bad mental image, check out:

    http://vimeo.com/3903404

    around the 1:31 mark.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. TJ, Anon 12:18 here,
    I didn't mean to be an asshole. You're right that it was not necessarily worse than anything else that gets said on here; I guess it was just the detailed imagery that I found disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Lunch.com is clearly sponsoring JA. Way to disclose that tidbit, Ms. Baugher.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Just for fun... my attempt at fixing Michael McDonald's horrible photography.

    http://i43.tinypic.com/27xosbl.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  47. I have to ask, where are the rest of the photos? I looked at the website listed on the photo, in his flickr etc. & cannot find them. And yes I may be a complete moron. In fact its a distinct possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  48. She posted the one with the umbrella herself together with her review of tuts on luch.com. The ballooon-jump installation can be found here among pictures of countless cute little celebritiy children - creepy as hell: http://www.kaiyaeve.com/celebs/

    ReplyDelete
  49. the balloon jump photo shoot would be markedly less disturbing if and only if

    a) she was not who she is
    b) she hadn't set this shoot up herself, essentially conned both photog and tutu supplier with false promises of publicity (aka hopefully eventual profit, clearly not happening)
    c) it wasn't just so weird, she's basically just riffing off the museum art jumping fad, in a tutu, in public

    this is like her version of the carrie bus ad... nooo thanks julia. it actually bugs that she calls it a photo shoot. unless it's commissioned by someone else (press or whoever, no matter how small) using that word should be outlawed. although I'm going out with my friends this evening and we're gonna have a photo shoot at the karaoke bar, peeps. OK it'll really only be our amateur digital point and shoots but nobody needs to know.

    ReplyDelete
  50. She's the ONLY grown up on that entire picture wall wearing that shit. And it's not a TUTU!

    ReplyDelete
  51. You know the thing though... she's giving these companies the impression that she goes out and is photographed regularly a la your average celeb that gets practically thrown loaners to wear for publicity purposes. She is only ever followed or shot by her own photogs, those she harasses for a photo or an outlet using her photo to poke fun at her. It's no wonder the free stuff started drying up. Companies started to wise up that she wasn't anywhere on the photo agency sites, that all these photos ended up mostly on her sites or those semi-dedicated to mocking her.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @12:46 AM

    i don't think they're exactly sponsoring her, but i do think she gets something if people use "julia allison" when they sign up for an account.

    i went over to that site the other day and there's no obligation to put in a code/someone's name to get an account. you don't need a code to get an account.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm confused by that old post of hers from Anon 9:26. She says she's only considered marrying two people, one of whom was not her fiance. I thought considering marriage was kind of the basis of getting engaged.

    Is she trying to say she agreed to marry him without wanting to marry him? That's ridiculous. More likely she was hoping the guy would see the post and feel bad. What a terrible, terrible person.

    ReplyDelete
  54. CurrentGawkerEmployeeApril 9, 2009 at 8:51 AM

    OMG she DOES look like that. Poor Julia. Why on Earth does she dress/act like this? Is it to make up for the fact she has no personality?

    ReplyDelete
  55. I think the reason we never saw any photographs surface from this "photo shoot" is because Julia realized how horrible she looked in them. She was crowing about it from the rooftops beforehand and then... nothing. They weren't even posted on the photographers flickr and he posts EVERYTHING. Julia only posted a few pictures promoting the tutu on Lunch.com and the tutu website, probably because she got the tutu free or borrowed, told them it was "for a photoshoot" and owed them some pictures.

    Point is... I think she is slowing starting to realize she looks like a creepy and slightly pathetic woman-child.

    ReplyDelete
  56. But good old [insert old Broadway star here] may be a sad figure today, but at least she was someone with some accomplishment at some point. Julia on the other hand never went past ambition and appearance, skipping actual achievement and moving on directly to sad could have been.
    She's like these wannabe writers who get one of the countless "Write your first bestseller" books, spend a lot of money on accessories like the perfect antique desk and moleskin notebooks and never actually get past creating the perfect conditions for writing the great American novel instead of just sitting down, developing an idea and working on it.
    She needs to stop focusing on the shell, but then again, without this shell there might in fact be nothing left.
    Someone mentioned her looking like a Geisha which fits in nicely with the non personality comment. In a way she seems like a generic woman who tries to be whatever she thinks she is expected to be. Instead of critcising dates for having been themselves, she might want to give this a try herself.

    ReplyDelete
  57. For some reason the first thing I thought of looking at these pics was Norma Desmond preparing for her monkey's funeral.

    ReplyDelete
  58. gee, thanks partypants. now my coffee is ALL.OVER.THE.PLACE. :)

    ReplyDelete
  59. Fran, you better take a picture of that spilled coffee for your month-long coffee art project!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Mean Girl, at the moment I'm still trying to complete my month-long project of capturing the moment the minute hand of my watch points to the 20 minutes mark. Can't be much longer. After that, I'll get straight to project spilled coffee.

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=23w4pxy&s=5

    ReplyDelete
  61. Wah poor Julia has a date and date is himself..wah wah wah wah

    ReplyDelete
  62. Seriously, how unself-aware do you have to be as Julia Allison to make that kind of statement; she's talking about herself all her life! The point of her assholeish post was to chastise the guy, make an allowance and discuss his following apologetic mannerisms (for her benefit, lest it be even remotely implied that she tolerated this supposed obnoxious behavior) through saying he was trying to make up for it, then chastise him again. Basically like "HE was the problem NOT ME, but he's trying to fix it, so that is good! But also, HE was the problem".I say WHAAAATEVER to her so-called anger at dude being himself and turning out to be a "wanker". If she thinks of him that way, he must have been harmless or appropriately unimpressed by her. Her behavior is so gross that it amazes me she could ever comment on someone else's behavior, especially when his "you can't change a person" attitude and mentality is and always has been her exact approach to just about EVERY interaction she has had with rules, regulations, and authority in her life. She's being more than hypocritical here, but at the end of it all she just wants to illustrate that a date is trying hard to "win her back" and that she's supposedly this tough girl calling him on his stuff. No, not so much. If she even really cared about the guy she wouldn't bother writing about it, and his apparent dismissal of her hurt her feelings enough for her to talk about it. She is annoying, period.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I wonder if it's the intellectual hairy-armed Harry Potter guy who she wrote the deranged, long post about. Like maybe he did something after their date, liked tipped someone off that she was a mentalcase.

    ReplyDelete