Baked beans

email this story
read comments (17)
post a comment

Why don't these stories tell us what we want to know, and let us see what we want to see? Britain's Daily Snack reported last night that Hugh Grant has been arrested for assault "after allegedly hurling a container of baked beans" at photographer Ian Whittaker yesterday morning (i.e., Tuesday) somewhere in west London.

What I want to know is, did Grant hit Whittaker with the beans in the head or the chest or where? Did the take-away container splatter all over the place and cover Whittaker's face in brownish-red sauce and gooey-drippy beans?

And where's the photograph? Can you imagine being a photographer and covered with baked beans that were thrown by a big-name actor and not taking a photo of yourself? Not to have done so argues with the primal instinct that drives all photographers. If I'd been Whittaker I would have persuaded a passerby to take the shot. And yet it happened a day and a half ago and no photo. This suggests to me that there wasn't much to see.

Whittaker seems to be a well-respected photographer, by the way.

Tribeca video #1<< previous | next >>Israeli critics vs. Matalon and Forum Film

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 26, 2007 at 10:55 AM

comment #1

Melquiades says ...

Photos of the incident are here, though nothing showing a coating of beans. There is a nice shot of Grant kicking the guy, though. So I guess there were two photographers there.

Posted by Melquiades at April 26, 2007 11:20 AM

comment #2

le corbeau says ...

That's a takeout-style plastic tub of baked beans, which means either:

1) Hugh Grant had baked beans in a restaurant.

2) Hugh Grant is so cheap he washed out a container he got from a Chinese takeout place and used it for baked beans.

Either way, as Will Smith would say, daaamn.

Posted by le corbeau at April 26, 2007 11:27 AM

comment #3

Monument says ...

Personally, I'd like to see more paparazzi covered in baked beans and punched in the face.

Posted by Monument at April 26, 2007 11:30 AM

comment #4

D.Z. says ...

Looks like Hanks robbed Sony for $50 million for Angels and Demons. http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070426g.php

Posted by D.Z. at April 26, 2007 11:41 AM

comment #5

adaml says ...

Mg,

Or 3) He shops at an expensive deli where you fills containers like that with beans and what not.

Posted by adaml at April 26, 2007 12:07 PM

comment #6

Joshua Mooney says ...

I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, "Mgmax." The photo clearly shows cellophane between the beans and the lid. So it wasn't take-away at all. No, Hugh meant that to be his dinner. He'd picked it up at Marks & Spencer only minutes before (I'm guessing). Thus, hurling it at the well-respected photographer was a real sacrifice on Mr. Grant's part. One he clearly felt needed to be made. I imagine him dining on nothing more than a raw potato and lighter fluid after this sad event.

[That's a takeout-style plastic tub of baked beans, which means either:

1) Hugh Grant had baked beans in a restaurant.

2) Hugh Grant is so cheap he washed out a container he got from a Chinese takeout place and used it for baked beans.

Either way, as Will Smith would say, daaamn.

Posted by: Mgmax at April 26, 2007 11:27 AM]

Posted by Joshua Mooney at April 26, 2007 12:15 PM

comment #7

JD says ...

Because reporters (especially tabloid journalists) feel an inexplicable kinship with the scum-of-the-earth known as paparazzi, articles about these incidents always paint celebrities in a negative light. Personally, I think we should all applaud celebrities every time they kick and/or throw beans at paparazzi.

As for Tom Hanks' payday on Angels and Demons, I don't think it's robbery at all. You couldn't pay me to watch A&D (or The Da Vinci Code), but his absence would certainly cost the studio somewhere beween $35 and $50 million is lost box office. Plus, whoever replaced him would get $10-20 million anyway. The real outrage is the rumor that they're giving Giselle $13 million. Why don't they just hire a hungry unknown with talent and pay her scale. That would be the smart move, particularly in light of the Hanks deal.

Posted by JD at April 26, 2007 12:29 PM

comment #8

Pelham123 says ...

Someone should give Hugh Grant $35M for hitting the scummy (are there any other?) papparazzi.

Posted by Pelham123 at April 26, 2007 12:32 PM

comment #9

christian says ...

far as i'm concerned, the paparazzi are getting off light. hugh should have cooked the beans first. the english press are parasitic li'l bitches far worse than the us counterparts.

Posted by christian at April 26, 2007 12:58 PM

comment #10

nemo says ...

The door to the house was already open when Grant threw the baked beans. Maybe he always keeps a tub of baked beans on a side table just inside his front door just to have them handy for occasions like this.

Posted by nemo at April 26, 2007 1:38 PM

comment #11

mizerock says ...

Isn't there some website that displays pictures of "Stalkerazzi"? These scumbags killed Lady Di. Worse yet: the people that make this a profitable enterprise by buying those scummy tabloids.

Posted by mizerock at April 26, 2007 2:08 PM

comment #12