Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Sandra Bullock News (2012 To 2014)


Sandra Bullock's Tearful Tribute To Jay Leno: 'You've Always Been So Kind'
(By Aaron Couch, 5 Hollywood Reporter, February 2014)
Sandra Bullock gave a tearful sendoff to Jay Leno Wednesday during his penultimate Tonight Show, which also featured surprise appearances from Arsenio Hall, Kevin Smith and Carrot Top.  "You've always been so kind. That's saying a lot in this business, because we like to be mean," Bullock said. "There's not been one time you haven't treated me like I had something to offer – even when the film was awful and you knew it, you never let me see it in your eyes." 
She added: "When I made crazy life decisions, you never questioned it. You were so welcoming. I just felt special, even when I was insecure."  "Well, you are special," Leno said, kissing Bullock's hand.  The sincere moment came after Leno teased Bullock about Speed 2 – noting he could finally ask borderline rude question, because of his impending retirement: "I don't care anymore!" 
Earlier, a few unannounced guests stopped by The Tonight Show to toast outgoing host Leno.  Leno told the audience he'd been cleaning out his office, and found some things his famous guests had left over the years. Among them- Justin Bieber's diary and a bong.  After Leno read from the diary, director Kevin Smith showed up to claim the bong- noting it held less weed than when he'd left it.  Carrot Top appeared to claim a few props he'd left at the show, including a new helmet for recently defeated Super Bowl team the Denver Broncos (complete with tissues). Arsenio Hall also made a brief appearance to wish Leno luck. Later, Blake Shelton praised Leno for keeping his personal politics out of the show. "Everybody gets ripped on."  Leno's final Tonight Show is Thursday, with Billy Crystal and Garth Brooks scheduled. Leno said there'd be more surprises that even he isn't privy to. 
 
Sandra Bullock Googled Herself And This Is What Happened
(By  Lauren Duca, The Huffington Post, 23 January 2014)
Sandra Bullock googled herself only to discover that she was in a feud with Julia Roberts over George Clooney.  "I thought maybe it would be a nice fun approach to this evening to do, maybe, something different, so I Googled myself and read the comments section, thinking I would get some tidbits of what people really think of me and share them " she said at the 25th annual Palm Springs International Film Festival Gala on Saturday (Jan. 4). "Never read the comments section … or Google oneself, at anytime...  "Apparently, Julia [Roberts], I don't know where you are, you and I are in a dispute over George Clooney," Bullock laughed. "We talked about this, right? It's a shared custody."
The "Gravity" star also read some disparaging comments about herself, noting that most of the "insults" were related to her being "over 40." "Everything that Sandra Googled about herself, they say about me too, except they say over 60," Meryl Streep joked later in the evening.  In conclusion, Sandra Bullock is our imaginary best friend and she, Meryl and Julia are a trio of best friends, that often spend afternoons giggling over Google and crisp white wine that wishes it could age as well as they have.
 
 


Sandra Bullock Not First - Or Even Fifth - Choice For 'Gravity'
(By Hollie McKay, Pop Tarts & FoxNews.com, October 03, 2013)
 
Listen for gasps in the "Gravity" audience when 50-year-old leading lady Sandra Bullock first slips out of her space suit and shows off her flawless figure in a tiny crop top and itty bitty shorts. And then know her body isn't the only miracle -- her being in the movie at all was a long-shot at best.   Originally written for Angelina Jolie, the lead female role was reportedly offered to a bevy of much younger stars. In mid-2010, Marion Cotillard, 38, screen tested. A couple of months later Scarlett Johansson, 28, and Blake Lively, 26, were being linked to the movie. When director Alfonso Cuarón got the green light from Warner Bros., he offered the part to Natalie Portman, 32, without a screen test. But she passed.
Which is when Oscar winner Bullock entered the picture. And even she admits she was a weird choice for a movie about an astronaut floating helplessly in space, but for a totally different reason.  “I don’t like to fly. I’ve never been a good flyer," Bullock told FOX411. “I have a lot of friends that have permanent nail marks in their arms… The moaning that comes from me when there is turbulence. It’s awkward for everyone around.”  Luckily for Bullock, filming "Gravity" didn’t require any actual soaring. Instead Bullock, like her co-star George Clooney, was harnessed with around a dozen carbon-thin wires across her body to train, and tied into a rig inside a tailor-made cube adorned by over four thousand LED light bulbs. The bulbs could simulate whatever brightness, speed and color were required to capture the light of Earth below and sun in the distance as her astronaut character spun and slammed into stuff

MORE: How Sandra Bullock trained for weightlessness.

“The toughest aspect (of filming) was gravity. We had to have the actors floating around the way they would react in space and there is no resistance in space and we needed to invent a new set of tools to achieve that,” Cuarón explained. “The journey of inventing those tools is what took a while.”  Four-and-a-half years to be exact.   And while the process wasn’t always a walk (or rather or whirl) in the park, it did teach Bullock a few extra life lessons.  “It was frustrating, scary, exhilarating, humbling… But mostly, it just pissed you off. It took away all your control, and your crutches and forced you to (surrender),” she added. “But I have gotten to that point in my life where I know I am absolutely out of control, and if anything should happen other than what I do, than that is all I have got. And even if I am not always controllable.”  “Gravity” opens in theaters Friday
 

Sandra Bullock Keeps Defying 'Gravity' With Her Career
(By Lisa Respers, CNN, October 5, 2013)
 
In many ways Sandra Bullock is an unlikely star -- just as "Gravity," the film that may earn her another Oscar nomination, is an unlikely runaway hit. And it's just opening Friday.  In order to not give too much away (we know how much you hate spoilers), we will just say that "Gravity" is about some astronauts who run into trouble while in space. So, how can a 90-minute film about two very likable people -- Bullock and George Clooney -- floating beyond Earth be termed a "thriller"?

The same way Bullock, who for the most part eschews the trappings of Hollywood, has managed to become such a huge celebrity, who can seemingly do no wrong. If ever there was a contest for "America's sweetheart," the actress would be tough to beat, since that has been her moniker for the past few years.  Examine the evidence: Bullock is a woman who -- at the height of a devastating marital breakup from Jesse James in 2010, when lurid tabloid headlines appeared about his alleged affairs -- shocked the world with news that she had secretly adopted an African-American son from New Orleans. Not only was it surprising that the Oscar-winning actress had such a tight circle that she was able to conceal a monumental personal moment, but unlike some other celebs who had been criticized in the black community for transracial adoptions, Bullock and her decision were mostly embraced.
The "Blind Side" star has made paparazzi literally chase her outside the usual city limits, choosing to build her life in cities like Austin, Texas, and New Orleans. Articles about her are apt to contain lines like those in a recent Vogue piece: "The beloved -- and eminently bankable -- Sandra Bullock soars to new heights in the season's hotly anticipated outer-space thriller, 'Gravity.'"  She is firmly in the top 10 list of Hollywood's highest paid actresses and her films tend to make money. Even other celebrities adore her. "Avengers" star Chris Evans has been quoted as saying Bullock was his first celebrity crush.  "I saw 'Speed' when I was in seventh grade, and I was like, that's my lady," Evans said. "I literally had a big poster (of her)."  It's easy to see why a preteen Evans fell for Bullock. The daughter of an Army employee and a German vocal coach, Bullock has continually struck a chord with fans -- coming across as extremely genuine in a field which makes its magic through pretending. When Bullock won the best actress Oscar for "The Blind Side" in 2010, she brought some to tears with her heartfelt tribute to her late mother.
Sandra Bullock hails law limiting paparazzi: 'Children should not be sold'
"If I can take this moment to thank Helga B. for not letting me ride in cars with boys until I was 18 -- because she was right. I would have done what she said I was going to do," Bullock said. "For making me practice every day when I got home. Piano, ballet, whatever it is I wanted to be -- she said to be an artist, you had to practice every day. And for reminding her daughters that there's no race, no religion, no class system, no color, nothing, no sexual orientation that makes us better than anyone else. We are all deserving of love. So, to that trailblazer, who allowed me to have that.  And this."
In interviews Bullock can be funny, self-deprecating and just downright cool. During an appearance in June on "The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" to promote her buddy cop comedy, "The Heat," she and the host good-naturedly took verbal swipes at each other. When Ferguson mentioned the film "Dumb and Dumber" (in an apparent reference to the way their interview was going), Bullock volleyed back about that movie.  "Poop humor is fun," she said jokingly. "If you do the toilet scenes well and commit to them they can be really, really powerful."  Not many Academy Award winners would tackle such a subject, but it's not surprising from Bullock, who recently proudly told Us Weekly that her now-3-year-old son, Louis, is fully potty-trained. While the actress has almost always been tagged as more girl next door than vixen, motherhood has clearly helped settle her even more.

She's been very outspoken about the fact that she would give it all up, the career and the fame, if it wasn't good for her son in any way.  "I don't want him to have pressures brought on by what I do. I will quit. I will leave," she told Vogue. "If I see whatever I'm doing affecting him negatively, I will pack up and move to Alaska."  Which probably helps explain why the self-professed homebody would much rather be spending time with her toddler than working the press, as she did recently at the premiere of "Gravity." In the Alfonso Cuaron-directed film, she plays Ryan Stone, a medical engineer on her first space mission. The movie calls for Bullock to be in some pretty out-there situations, but she told CNN at the premiere that being on the red carpet was extreme enough for her.
"That's the most extreme situation I've experienced in a long time," Bullock said. "Being in front of a camera, in a nice dress, getting all dressed up is extreme. There's a lot of other extreme situations, you know, just getting out of bed sometimes is extreme -- but I do it. Just got to do it, just got to get up. Put your sweatpants on, brush off the dog hair and just get out of the house!"  Following the film's debut at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, chatter immediately started that Bullock could once again be a contender for an Oscar. For director Cuaron, his star's performance was so strong, it overshadowed even the special effects and technology used to make her appear weightless in "Gravity."  "When you see Sandra performing ... with the truthfulness she performed, you forget it was any technology around," he told Access Hollywood.

George Clooney Explains Why He Won't Date Sandra Bullock
(By Natalie Finn, E!, Oct. 2, 2013)
 
George Clooney is nothing if not a man's man.  Though he admitted that his Gravity costar, Sandra Bullock, looked especially great on the red carpet at their film's New York City premiere, Clooney would never date his friend of "more than 20 years."  "She was dating one of my best friends," Clooney told E! News last night, explaining why they never hooked up in the past. But...why not now then?! They're both gorgeous and fabulous and...  "There's a certain bro code, you know what I mean?" he insisted. "I've known her a long, long time."
WATCH: Sandra Bullock what sort of revenge she's plotting against prankster George Clooney
"She looks beautiful, doesn't she?" Clooney added, trying to turn the attention back to Bullock looking absolutely stunning in her asymetrical white minidress by Giambattista Valli and black and white Giuseppe Zanotti heels.  In fact, Bullock proved way too much of a distraction for some.  "I don't know what qualities I would look for," Clooney gently chided us when we earnestly inquired what the recently single movie star looks for in a woman. "I'm looking at Sandy there and you're asking me questions like that!"
 
 Sandra Bullock Says She and George Clooney Rapped Competitively on Gravity Set
(By Joyce Chen, US Weekly, October 3, 2013)
 
Credit: David Steele/Disney-ABC Domestic Television
 
Well, you've gotta pass the time somehow! Sandra Bullock and George Clooney made the most of their downtime on the set of new film Gravity, learning the lyrics to the Sugarhill Gang classic "Rapper's Delight," the actress revealed on LIVE with Kelly and Michael on Thursday, Oct. 3.  The longtime friends would compete to see who could remember the most of the wordy lyrics, she added.  "I've got to give it to him," the 49-year-old actress told the morning show hosts. "There's a couple words -- the bridges -- that I chose not to learn. I'll give it to George. George has about 98 percent of that song down, in the eight minute version."
 
Credit: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images

Bullock and Clooney, 52, have been friends for more than 20 years, and the pair are more than just "similar," according to Bullock.  "We were pretty much separated at birth," she said of her dapper costar.  In the film, the pair play two astronauts in space who find themselves floating above earth after an accidental explosion completely cuts off their communication to Houston and causes various other major mishaps -- all while the duo are suspended thousands of miles above ground.
"It's really about this emotional ride that you are allowed to step on," Bullock said on the show. "And whatever's happened in your life, you experience that and think about, 'What would I do?' And hopefully by the time you get out of the theater, you go, 'I'm going to change my life. I'm going to change and do the things I always said, 'Maybe one day.' Don't 'maybe one day' it. Life is short, things happen. Do it now."


http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/sandra-bullock-says-she-and-george-clooney-rapped-competitively-on-gravity-set-2013310#ixzz2gzIfaEvW




George Clooney Says Sandra Bullock Drunk Dials Him Every Night
(Huffington Post, 13 November 2013)
 
"Gravity" co-stars George Clooney and Sandra Bullock have so much chemistry that the rest of the world is rooting for a romantic relationship to blossom, even if they're not.  Though we find it hard to believe, Bullock recently explained it's because she's just not attracted to the 52-year-old star, because after knowing each other for so long, "sexy is gone."  "Not that he's not sexy because he is very, very handsome. If you like that kind of dashing, charming, smart, talented, successful kind of thing. It's not everyone's cup of tea," she told U.K. morning TV show Daybreak.
As it turns out, even Clooney finds her explanation a bit hard to swallow. At Saturday (Nov. 9) night's 2013 BAFTA Britannia Awards in Los Angeles, the actor revealed just how fond of him Bullock really is.  "Let me tell you about Sandy. Yeah, she may say that she's not all that attracted to me. But she calls every night at three in the morning drunk," Clooney joked to "Entertainment Tonight." "'Hey George, what are you doin'?' Nonstop. And then I just send her a bottle of tequila."
The pair certainly seem to have a good friendship, but they've also come up with a lot of reasons for never getting romantically involved. While the 49-year-old actress recently told Jay Leno they never dated because "we’re a little too similar, in all the disturbing ways," Clooney told E! News the actress used to date one of his best friends.  "There's a certain bro code, you know what I mean?" he said.
 
 

'Gravity' Star Sandra Bullock To Receive Acting Honor At Hollywood Film Awards
(By Scott Feinberg, Hollywood Reporter, 19 September 2013)

Sandra Bullock, the star of some of the most important and popular films in Hollywood history, will receive the Hollywood Actress Award at the 17th annual Hollywood Film Awards -- the first awards show of the 2013 season -- on Oct. 21 at the Beverly Hilton, The Hollywood Reporter has learned. (The Hollywood Film Awards is owned by affiliates of THR parent company Guggenheim Partners.)  Previous recipients of the Hollywood Actress Award include Drew Barrymore (1999), Angelina Jolie (2000), Nicole Kidman (2001), Jennifer Aniston (2002), Diane Lane (2003), Annette Bening (2004 and 2010), Charlize Theron (2005), Penelope Cruz (2006), Marion Cotillard (2007 and 2012), Kristin Scott Thomas (2008), Hilary Swank (2009) and Michelle Williams (2011).

Bullock, 49, has starred in numerous films -- across genres -- that were highly critically-acclaimed and/or commercially successful, including seven films that grossed over $100 million and three films that were nominated for a best picture Oscar.  These include Jan de Bont's Speed (1994), Jon Turteltaub's While You Were Sleeping (1995), Joel Schumacher's A Time to Kill (1996), Forest Whitaker's Hope Floats (1998), Griffin Dunne's Practical Magic (1998), Betty Thomas' 28 Days (2000), Donald Petrie's Miss Congeniality (2000), Callie Khouri's Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood (2002), Barbet Schroeder's Murder by Numbers (2002), Marc Lawrence's Two Weeks Notice (2002), Douglas McGrath's Infamous (2006), Alejandro Agresti's The Lake House (2006), Anne Fletcher's The Proposal (2009) and three films that were nominated for the best picture Oscar: Paul Haggis' Crash (2005), John Lee Hancock's The Blind Side (2009) and Stephen Daldry's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011). Crash took home that prize, and Bullock won the best actress Oscar for The Blind Side.
This summer, Bullock and Melissa McCarthy proved a winning combo in Paul Feig's hilarious blockbuster, The Heat. And, at this fall's Telluride and Toronto film festivals, Bullock's performance in Alfonso Cuaron's awe-inspiring 3D space drama, Gravity, opposite her old friend George Clooney, earned her some of the best reviews of her career -- and widespread speculation that it will ultimately bring her the second best actress Oscar nomination of her career. Warner Bros. will release the film nationwide on Oct. 4. It is in recognition of this tremendous year, generally -- and for the latter performance, specifically -- that she is being recognized at the Hollywood Film Awards.
The Hollywood Film Awards are determined by founder and executive director Carlos de Abreu and an advisory committee. Last month, the Hollywood Film Awards and Dick Clark Productions, which also produced the Golden Globe Awards, entered into a partnership that could lead to the ceremony being televised in future years. Over the past 10 years, Hollywood Film Awards honorees went on to garner a total of 96 Oscar nominations and 34 Oscars.  De Abreu tells THR, “We are honored to present the Hollywood Actress Award to Sandra for her outstanding work in Gravity. Holding the screen alone for a large part of the film, she delivers a stunning and emotionally layered performance that shows once again why she is one of Hollywood's most respected and popular actresses."
 

 
 


Fug Or Fab The Cover: Sandra Bullock On Vogue
(By Jessica, Go Fug Yourself, Sep 18, 2013)
 
At least two of you predicted that Sandy Bullock here was going to land a cover for Gravity.  My feelings on this cover are so mixed. For one thing, I love that Vogue has a 49-year-old woman on the cover; it doesn’t happen often enough, despite the fact that the 49-year-old women of the world are more likely to be the women who can actually afford that promised perfect fall wardrobe. I love this sea-foam-green-meets-Tiffanys-blue color, and I dig the sort of 60s thing they’re doing on her, especially because it feels like a smart wink to the fact that she’s in a movie that’s about, at least in part, the space program.
 
I love Sandra Bullock in general, and I think her face has a lot of feeling in this photo (thanks perhaps to the fact that she doesn’t have, as the cover frets, an “overinjected face.” I hope the cure for that is just one sentence: “stop getting injections, dumb-ass, and go outside for a little while.”). The whole thing is striking.  On the “con” side of the pro/con equation: that hair. I get it, but I don’t know if I like it.  What do you think?

I love this. Grade: A.
I am good with this, but I hoped for better. Grade: B
This is acceptable but BARELY. Grade: C.
This is technically passing, but I am very unhappy about it: Grade: D
FAIL.

 
 

Sandra Bullock Is On Top Of The World With Her New Film Gravity
(By Jason Gay, Vogue, September 17, 2013)
 
Photographed by Peter Lindbergh
 
In our next lives, let’s all move to Austin, Texas. I’m serious. The place is heaven, with better breakfast. A capital city, a college town; the living is easy, unpretentious, serene. Everything moves at just the right speed. Little surprises happen. You go for coffee, and there may be a bluegrass band playing at the coffee shop. Another city, that might drive you slightly bananas. Here, it feels perfect. That’s Austin.  This is what brought Sandra Bullock here. She found herself in Austin about fifteen years ago, on a road trip, searching for something that wasn’t New York City, which at the time was grinding her down, with its concrete and claustrophobia and that person on the subway who would not . . . shut . . . up. Bullock stepped into the warm Texas air, and it was as if a screen door had opened. Grass, green, calm. Austin made it possible to not be Sandra Bullock, movie star, celebrity, paparazzi target. Here she could crawl out of that protective exoskeleton she calls her “armor” and be a human being. “I felt like myself,” Bullock says. “It was just my safe place. I would get off the plane, smell the soil, hear the cicadas. . . .”
It is late afternoon, and Bullock is guiding me across the front counter of Walton’s Fancy and Staple, a local flower business she bought and relocated to Austin’s downtown in 2009, adding gourmet sandwiches and a bakery with a chocolate cake that Bullock asks me to order because (a) it’s chocolate cake, like I need a reason, and (b) she is going to steal some later. High-ceilinged and airy, with elegant floral arrangements sold in the back, Walton’s looks like the kind of establishment Jimmy Stewart might have taken someone on a first date.  Bullock is deep in its details here, and also at Bess, the law office turned bistro she opened three years prior down the street. She jokes that her staff rolls its eyes at her suggestions, since the boss has expensive taste. Whatever.  It makes her happy. “The acting thing is so beyond my control,” she says. “Acting isn’t mine. You’re like a tiny piece in this big, corporate mechanism that needs chemistry and divine intervention.” She looks at the tables behind us, full of families meandering on a long summer Sunday. “This is mine.”
Bullock takes a seat around the corner from the counter, by the window. She is dressed in a pair of white J Brand cutoff shorts, a matching white top, and Sam Edelman gladiator sandals. In these surroundings, it can be hard to remember that the laid-back proprietor is also one of the most successful actresses in the business, an Academy Award winner, still a box-office juggernaut after more than two decades in the trade. You know: OMG Sandra Bullock! It’s not always easy for Bullock to hide in plain sight as she can in Austin. “Going someplace with her can be cuckoo town,” says Melissa McCarthy, her costar in this summer’s bawdy buddy-cop hit The Heat. “People go crazy. They’re just so happy to see her.”
Let’s consider that Sandra Bullock for a moment, now 49, an actress with a staggering $3.5 billion in accumulated global box office. Peter Chernin, the former Fox studio chief whose Chernin Entertainment produced The Heat (and who ran Fox in 1994, when Bullock appeared in Speed), refers to her without hesitation as “the biggest female movie star in the world.” And yet it is something of an imprecise science to divine why audiences love her so. There are Bullock’s acting chops, long underrated, finally receiving their critical due with her decorated performance as football-mom dynamo Leigh Anne Tuohy in 2009’s The Blind Side. There’s also Bullock’s self-deprecating comedic gift—the homecoming queen who never quite got the hang of walking in heels. This ability to laugh at herself exists in real life: Bullock is the only actress to show up in person to collect her “Razzie” for Worst Actress (for 2009’s forgotten All About Steve) in the same season she won the coveted Oscar. “She’s incredibly funny, but the butt of almost all her jokes is herself,” says George Clooney, whom Bullock thanked from the Academy’s stage for throwing her in a swimming pool years ago. “That’s just an appealing quality.”
But the appreciation of Sandra Bullock always tends to circle back to a single, squishy word: relatability. Consciously or not, Bullock tends to remind people of someone they know—a best friend, a forgetful roommate, a favorite cousin. Audiences get behind her, connect to her, root for her because they recognize the person she is. It sounds so simple, and yet it is not. It is a golden quality. Clooney, who costars alongside Bullock in October’s 3-D space adventure, Gravity, puts it this way: “There has always been a really levelheaded, smart, funny girl you feel like you know. As if she was the cool girl next to you in school.”

Learn more about Sandra Bullock in Voguepedia.
This is something of a policy. Great care is taken at Sandra Bullock Industries, Inc., to stay grounded, to live as normal a life as possible. The center of the universe is Bullock’s son, Louis, adopted in January 2010, now three. There are birthday parties and children’s books, and cheetah-print pajamas that Louis likes his mom to wear. There’s an entourage that’s not exactly red-carpet: a two-legged pet dog named Ruby, a three-legged dog named Poppy (“Basically one dog with an extra leg”), a fish named Rave after the Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens, and a stray deer that has shown up in the backyard of Bullock’s Austin house; Louis has named it Gofi for reasons only Louis knows. Back in California, where she also has a home, she keeps chickens named for comediennes: Carol Burnett, Wanda Sykes, and a Phyllis Diller, until she was revealed to be a rooster and rechristened Phil Diller. “Work was my life before,” Bullock says. “Now I have no reason to leave home.”  She reaches across the table and sticks a fork in my dessert, lifting a bite into her mouth.  “Quality control,” she says.
Cautiously, Bullock has been stepping back into her day job. Until The Heat, she had appeared in only one film since her Oscar, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, released in 2011. Now comes Gravity, an intimate epic years in the making, from the acclaimed Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Y Tu Mamá También).  The story of Bullock and Gravity begins in Austin, specifically at the Four Seasons Hotel several blocks away, where Cua­rón had flown in to talk to Bullock about this long-gestating idea he had for a movie about astronauts. He wanted Bullock to consider the highly sought-after centerpiece part: Dr. Ryan Stone, a NASA medical engineer working for the first time aboard the space shuttle when a disaster strikes, stranding Dr. Stone in space, cut off from all contact, running out of oxygen, desperate to find her way back to Earth.
Bullock was a massive fan of Cuarón’s—she jokes that she would have taken a part in Alfonso Cuarón’s Garfield IV—but the role of Dr. Stone gave her a knot in the stomach, especially when the director excitedly explained how the film would replicate antigravity: by putting Bullock inside a specialized airplane nicknamed the Vomit Comet, plunging out of the sky to create brief moments of weightlessness. “I’m petrified of flying,” Bullock says. “Plummeting out of the sky was not my idea of how I wanted to work with Alfonso Cua­rón. But at one point I sat down and said, ‘What is it about this movie that is telling me to get off my ass and get over something that has paralyzed me?’ ”  Bullock put her fears aside and signed on, and it wasn’t until shortly before shooting began that she learned the Vomit Comet had been mercifully canceled for reasons of logistics (it turned out it was possible to film weightlessness inside the plane only in bursts of 20 seconds, making long takes impossible). Instead, Gravity was filmed on an elaborate set in London, using puppeteers from the stage production of War Horse to simulate astronauts floating through the weightless environment. Bullock was outfitted in carbon-fiber plates and connected to a dozen wires, and together the actress and her puppeteers mastered the art of floating in a space suit, which basically looks like swimming through pudding. Cuarón says the process was difficult, sometimes painful for Bullock. “But after not having to do the Vomit Comet, she was so happy, she didn’t care.”
Bullock’s Dr. Stone spends much of the movie on her own, and the same was true during filmmaking, as Bullock worked long days in a space suit suspended in darkness, listening to Cuarón via an earpiece, guiding her attention to a string of LED lights meant to represent things like a space station, or Clooney’s character, who is also stranded.  Obsessive attention was paid to details such as breathing and moving. (“You have to speak quickly and move slowly,” says Clooney. “Sounds easy, but it’s hard to do.”) Dr. Stone is haunted by a past tragedy, and Bullock wanted her to resemble a person who had “become a shell,” so she underwent a grueling physical-training regimen designed to strip away “almost everything that possibly made her a woman.” A dancer since childhood, Bullock found a pair of Australian dancers who served as her trainers. “They created a way of working out that I could tolerate,” she says. “I don’t want to feel like I’m in a gym.”

Watch Sandra Bullock behind the scenes of her October cover shoot with Peter Lindbergh.
Gravity is Cuarón’s first movie in nearly seven years, and the final product is extraordinary in both its ambition and its soulfulness. Audiences will be mesmerized by its special effects and attention to detail—great care has been taken to re-create a true outer-space environment—but the film also doubles as a meditation on loss. “We wanted to do a film that was deeply emotional,” says Cuarón, who succinctly describes Gravity as a film about “rebirth.” The director says it wasn’t until shooting was finished and editing commenced that he began to notice all the subtle textures of Bullock’s performance, almost all of it done working against a green screen. “It was an amazing exercise of make-believe,” Cuarón says. “Watching in the cutting room, seeing all those beats together . . . her breaths, the fear in her face . . . it was incredible.”
Bullock sees Gravity as a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity. “You check it off and go, ‘If it ends here, I’ve ended up on top,’ ” she says. “There’s nothing else to do.”  When the film wrapped, an exhausted Bullock wanted something completely different. “I was like, ‘I need my funny,’ she says. This led her to The Heat, shot last summer in Boston with McCarthy, fresh off the breakout smash Bridesmaids. Bullock credits the success of Bridesmaids with helping The Heat happen, since it put to rest the dubious proposition that audiences wouldn’t support a female-driven comedy. Written by Katie Dippold and directed by Bridesmaids director Paul Feig, The Heat has already grossed nearly $200 million worldwide. I saw it in a packed theater not long after it opened, and the anticipation resembled Super Bowl Sunday, as if the audience couldn’t wait to see the comedic combination—Bullock playing it straight as a taciturn FBI agent; McCarthy crashing through doors as a foulmouthed Boston cop.
The pair’s chemistry was undeniable. “In comedy you just know right away,” says Bullock. “Melissa’s pure genius, you know? Everyone was just waiting to see what would come out of that woman’s mouth.”  What was novel about The Heat was seeing Bullock, a proven comedian, graciously take a step back and let another star shine. “If she wanted to, she could have stolen every scene in that movie,” confesses McCarthy. “She could have easily been like, ‘I’m Sandra Bullock. And you can walk behind me.’ Instead, she was like, ‘Come up here. Let’s figure this out together.’ That was a pretty amazing thing to be part of.”
After nearly 40 films (!), Bullock knows when to play it big, and when to close the valves and keep a performance measured. This kind of self-awareness elevated The Blind Side, a true story about an affluent white family that took in an African-American teenager who later went on to play pro football. Bullock was initially hesitant to get involved with the inspirational project, fearing it might be too hokey.  “I turned it down three, four times,” she says. “I was so worried about it being a Lifetime movie.” Director John Lee Hancock convinced her otherwise, but the first week of shooting was rocky. Bullock admits she struggled to find her rhythm playing Leigh Anne Tuohy, a larger-than-life Memphis powerhouse. “I could not make it work,” Bullock recalls. “I thought, I’m going to get roasted. I’m going to get creamed for this.”
But Bullock found the proper balance, and her performance as Tuohy was an exuberant surprise. So was The Blind Side, which started slowly at the box office but rallied via word of mouth, grossing more than $300 million on a $29 million budget. Bullock was at first an unlikely Oscar candidate, but the momentum grew gradually. This was her moment. Her friend Sue Kroll, the president of global marketing and distribution of Warner Bros., remembers being at the Screen Actors Guild Awards that season and seeing a room of actors erupt almost giddily when Bullock’s name was announced. “There was genuine warmth,” Kroll recalls. “People were happy for her.”  The Academy Awards that year felt like a cheery validation. Bullock wore a silvery, beaded Marchesa dress, and when her name was announced, she looked composed but stunned, rising from her chair and turning to her co-nominee Meryl Streep as if to ask: Did that actually happen? Her first line from the stage was classic Bullock self-deprecation: “Did I really earn this, or did I just wear y’all down?”

Of course, it is difficult to discuss that time in Bullock’s life without recalling the ugly mess that immediately followed. Only days after the Oscars, tabloid reports emerged that Bullock’s husband, motorcycle builder turned reality-TV star Jesse James, had been enmeshed in an extramarital affair. Bullock canceled a Blind Side promotional appearance in Europe for “unforeseen personal reasons” and fell off the radar as the story roiled for weeks. James would apologize for causing “pain and embarrassment”; the pair was divorced within months. From any angle, it looked like an agonizing nightmare, played out in public.  Bullock won’t get into specifics of the split or X-ray its details. She understands the fascination, but she isn’t going to examine it all. There is little doubt that the episode only furthered the public’s affection for her; more than ever, her audience stood behind her, eager to pick her back up. But a few years removed, Bullock is intent on letting the past stay in the past.  “We’re all where we’re supposed to be,” she says now. “I am exactly where I want to be now. You can’t go backward. I’m not going backward. I’m grateful that I’m here, blessed to have what I have. Nobody can be prepared for anything. If you end up in a place where you can look back and go, ‘It happened, but I’m so lucky to be sitting where I am sitting. . . .’ ” Bullock doesn’t complete the thought, but it is clear what she means.
What is astonishing about that frenzied period before and after the Oscars is that it corresponded with the happiest moment in Bullock’s life: the arrival of Louis. Born in New Orleans, he entered her world in January of 2010, and it’s something of a tiny miracle that the secret lasted through awards season, when Bullock was in the public eye almost daily, doing publicity for The Blind Side, making small talk on the red carpet. She remembers telephone interviews at her home in which the interviewer had no idea of the scoop on the other end: baby Louis, weeks old, nestled in her lap. “Thank God for the mute button,” Bullock jokes. Bullock had wanted to adopt for a long time. Reports that she was inspired by The Blind Side were wrong; the process had been initiated years before. Still, Louis’s arrival was sudden. A call came; Bullock scrambled to get ready. “There was no crib, nothing,” she says. “It was amazing how you just kick in and go, ‘This is it.’ ”
Her life was transformed. She was stunned, exhausted, sleep-deprived, ecstatic. She thought about screaming out the news at the Oscars—“I wanted to get up there and say, ‘Guess what?’ ”—but she decided against it. She did make a veiled reference, however, thanking “moms that take care of the babies and the children no matter where they come from.” Everyone assumed she was referring to the movie and Leigh Anne Tuohy, and she was. But she was also speaking about herself.
Bullock and Louis (pronounced LOU-ee) remain an inseparable tandem. “Louis is number one, and the next one down is 101,” says McCarthy. “He takes up the first hundred slots in her life.” McCarthy’s children grew close with Louis during the making of The Heat; Louis had his own kid zone on the London set of Gravity. (While Mom had her photograph taken for this issue of Vogue, Louis was also outfitted with his own NASA suit.) Bullock customizes her life around his, trying to minimize interruptions. “I think this business can take the child out of kids so quickly,” she says. “I don’t want him to have pressures brought on by what I do. I will quit. I will leave. If I see whatever I’m doing affecting him negatively, I will pack up and move to Alaska.”
Bullock says Louis is only vaguely aware of his mother’s day job. To him, she is somebody better. The hugger, the holder, the keeper of the food. The reader of Thomas the Tank Engine and The Runaway Bunny. Theirs is a quiet, domestic life. Bullock jokes that it’s been a while since her name surfaced in any tabloid stories. No secret wedding speculation. The latest untrue rumor was that Bullock was dating her security guard, Peter, which only infuriated Peter’s wife when a tabloid printed her name and age. “That’s what makes me want to step out of this business,” Bullock says. “When it hurts amazing people I’ve gotten to know. This is family, you know what I mean?”  It will not surprise you that Sandra Bullock is not on Twitter. 
How come you’re not on Twitter?  “I don’t want anyone to know where I am.”
This explains Austin, where nobody cares about the box office, the paparazzi do not lurk behind mailboxes, and Bullock can waltz through her restaurants like the detail-obsessed small-business owner she wants to be. “It’s as if she has no idea that she’s one of the most famous people on the planet,” says McCarthy. “She’s just solidly who she is. I don’t know what she thinks, but she’s never getting rid of me.”  Bullock will voice a character in an animated comedy next year; there are rumblings of a sequel to The Heat. “I’m just sort of seeing where life goes,” she says. She is open to the idea of more children. “If all of a sudden someone said, ‘You have five more kids,’ I’d be totally OK with it.” At the moment, “I’m having such an amazing time. Whatever comes our way, we handle as a family. It’s not just me anymore.”
At night, Bullock and Louis perform a little mother-and-son ritual they call the Grateful List, in which they express their gratitude for whatever comes to mind. Sometimes they’re grateful for big things. Sometimes it’s little things. Louis might say he is grateful for his toy cars, his food, his friends. Next to him is a movie star whom everybody knows, but none of that matters. It doesn’t matter to Sandra Bullock, either. Everything she is grateful for at that moment is right there in that room. It sounds perfect. It sounds close to normal. It sounds like a life.
 

Sandra Bullock Opens Up In Vogue About Son Louis And Her Career
(By Nardine Saad, latimes.com, September 17, 2013)
 
As if we need another reason to love Sandra Bullock.  "The Heat" star is Vogue magazine's October 2013 cover girl just before the release of her highly anticipated lost-in-space thriller "Gravity," co-starring George Clooney and helmed by Spanish director Alfonso Cuaron.  She calls Cuaron's groundbreaking film — his first in seven years — "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" and her performance is already generating Oscar buzz.  Bullock has been in the spotlight since the 1990s and writer Jason Gay harps on her relatability in the piece, her 40 films and $3.5 billion in accumulated global box office.  He even quotes Clooney to enforce Bullock's down-to-earth qualities.  "There has always been a really level-headed, smart, funny girl you feel like you know. As if she was the cool girl next to you in school," Clooney said. "She's incredibly funny, but the butt of almost all her jokes is herself. That's just an appealing quality."
 
But the writer takes measure to ensure people get to know Bullock in the piece, all that fame and tabloid fodder aside.  Life has obviously changed for the Oscar winner since her scandalous divorce from reality TV biker Jesse James. Fresh off her industry accolade for playing powerhouse Leigh Anne Tuohy in the football drama "The Blind Side," she was immersed in the world of tabloid gossip that emerged from James' cheating scandal. Their five-year marriage ended soon after.  Though she wouldn't go into too much detail about the past, she is pretty zen about the whole ordeal.  "We're all where we're supposed to be," she told the mag. "I am exactly where I want to be now. You can't go backward. I'm not going backward. I'm grateful that I'm here, blessed to have what I have. Nobody can be prepared for anything. If you end up in a place where you can look back and go, 'It happened, but I'm so lucky to be sitting where I am sitting...' "
Bullock filed for divorce in April 2010 saying the marriage had "become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities." The proceedings were finalized in June of that year.  During the process, her son Louis, 3, became the center of her universe after she adopted him that January.  "Work was my life before," Bullock said. "Now I have no reason to leave home."  Louis, born in New Orleans, arrived suddenly after a years-long process and somehow managed to stay a secret while she was doing the rounds during the award season.  "There was no crib, nothing," she said. "It was amazing how you just kick in and go, 'This is it.'"
The actress was tempted to announce his arrival during his Oscar speech, but instead decided to thank "moms that take care of the babies and the children no matter where they come from."  Melissa McCarthy, her costar from "The Heat," said Louis is Bullock's "number one, and the next one down is 101. He takes up the first hundred slots in her life."  And it's true. The actress has appeared in only a few films in recent years -- 2011's "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" and this summer's surprise hit "The Heat." She works tirelessly to make sure her son has a normal life and stays a kid for as long as he can, even if that means her leaving the industry.  "I think this business can take the child out of kids so quickly," Bullock said. "I don't want him to have pressures brought on by what I do. I will quit. I will leave. If I see whatever I'm doing affecting him negatively, I will pack up and move to Alaska." 
It's the negativity that makes her want to leave.  "That's what makes me want to step out of this business," Bullock said referring to a tabloid story about an alleged (and untrue) affair that affected her security guard's wife. "When it hurts amazing people I've gotten to know. This is family, you know what I mean?"  The 49-year-old is open to having more kids and signing up for a sequel to "The Heat," but for now she's just "sort of seeing where life goes.  If all of a sudden someone said, ‘You have five more kids,' I'd be totally OK with it," she said. "I'm having such an amazing time. Whatever comes our way, we handle as a family. It's not just me anymore."
And that's probably why she has ventured out to businesses away from Hollywood. Bullock opened a flower shop/bakery and law-office-turned-bistro in Austin, Texas, where she lives.  "The acting thing is so beyond my control. Acting isn't mine. You're like a tiny piece in this big, corporate mechanism that needs chemistry and divine intervention," she said. "This is mine," she added, referring to her Austin-based businesses.  And that already harsh spotlight is just another reason for her not to be on Twitter.  "I don't want anyone to know where I am."  For now, we can find her and her new cropped haircut on the cover of the mag, which hits newsstands Sept. 24. "Gravity" launches in theaters Oct. 4.

 

Sandra Bullock:  How My Time-Out Led To 'Gravity'
(By Tatiana Siegel, Borys Kit, Hollywood Reporter, 11 September 2013)
 
"The minute the headgear went on, it was silent," says Bullock of "Gravity." "I didn't hear the crew, didn't hear the mechanics. But it was probably really helpful."
 
After recovering from an adoption and a painful divorce, the star cemented her A-list status with her stunning turn in Alfonso Cuaron's sci-fi drama, co-starring George Clooney.  With her career cresting after a best actress Oscar win in 2010 for The Blind Side, Sandra Bullock made an unlikely move. She quietly put acting on hold, sweeping aside the torrent of offers. "I really had no desire to work at that time," recalls Bullock, who was a new mother in the middle of a very public divorce from motorcycle personality Jesse James.  But director Alfonso Cuaron flew to Bullock's home in Austin to discuss his space odyssey Gravity and coax her back from exile. "We didn't talk about space or technology," explains Cuaron. "We only talked about feelings. The theme of adversity was something very fresh in her life. We spent a whole evening just discussing how it shapes your life." 
Three years later, Bullock is being hailed for Gravity and a performance that perhaps is a career best -- a role so challenging that it required the actress to complete most of her scenes isolated in a light tube without sound. The fact that the film, opening Oct. 4, also holds great box-office potential reflects Bullock's own career arc and its melding of high quality and commerciality.  "By the end [of our meeting], I still wasn't sure how I would execute a project like this," says Bullock. "But I met someone whom I had a great connection with. It made it a lot easier to answer, 'Am I going to pass up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?' "
Guided by longtime CAA agent Kevin Huvane, Bullock, 49, has built one of Hollywood's most enduring careers by seizing opportunity at the precise moment and avoiding the overexposure that has toppled many others. She first cracked the highest echelon of film stars nearly two decades ago with her breakout action hit Speed. Since then, she earned a perch as one of the most bankable actresses with such hits as While You Were Sleeping, Miss Congeniality, Crash and The Proposal, oscillating between romantic comedies and heavy dramas.
Since winning the Oscar, Bullock only has shot three films: the post-9/11 drama Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Gravity and summer hit The Heat, which has earned $218 million worldwide. The three films showcase a range that few could have anticipated back when Hollywood had branded her the girl next door. In the case of Gravity, she carries the film almost entirely on her padded spacesuit (co-star George Clooney enjoys far less screen time). "She brings a real strength, a real physicality," says Gravity producer David Heyman. "But she also brings a tenderness and vulnerability. It's a rare combination."

 

Why 'Gravity's' Alfonso Cuaron Thanked James Cameron In The Credits
(By Matthew Belloni, Hollywood Reporter, 5 September 2013)
 
It has been seven years since Alfonso Cuaron’s previous film (Children of Men), but the 51-year-old Mexican filmmaker hasn't been wasting time. Gravity, his hugely ambitious space thriller starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, required years to research, write (with son Jonas) and seamlessly visualize (actors' faces often are the only non-CG elements of scenes). After winning raves at Venice and Telluride, the film arrives Sept. 8 at Toronto ahead of an Oct. 4 wide release and likely awards run.
 
The film's opening scene is a 13-minute showstopper. How long did it take you to choreograph everything?
You're asking why this movie took four-and-a-half years to make. (Laughs.)
The logistical details of being trapped in space feel totally authentic. Did you have NASA consultants?
Some were astronauts or people involved with the Hubble telescope. It was constant research. Even how people float, action and reaction -- that's the weirdest thing with micro-gravity, the way bodies react to other bodies.
When writing essentially a two-person screenplay, did you feel you needed two big stars to carry the film?
The camera was relentlessly on Sandra Bullock for a long, long, long, long period. We needed someone to really be able to sustain that because the whole film was going to be on her shoulders.
What surprised you most about Bullock?
Amazing discipline. She had to pretty much learn scenes like a ballerina learning choreography. She was performing inside a box of light with almost no reference to what was going on outside. We would say, "OK, exactly at this moment, you have to look up here, George is on your left, but remember that you are spinning so that is going to change, next time you refer to George, he's going to be over there." She would take her time to absorb everything, so when we started rolling cameras, everything was pure performance and emotion.
In the credits, you thank James Cameron. Why?
This film was a miscalculation. There was not technology for what we were trying to achieve. But [Cameron] was a big champion. He said, "Man, you're going to make this happen," and started giving me pointers. And we made it happen.

 

'Gravity' And Stars Bullock And Clooney Are Out Of This World, Oscar-Bound
(By Scott Feinberg , Hollywood Reporter, 31 August 2013)
 
Gravity, Alfonso Cuaron's highly anticipated 3D drama about two American astronauts who become lost in space and struggle to survive after a freak accident, made its North American debut Saturday night at the new Werner Herzog Theater, three days after its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival. The film, which is drawn from a script co-written by the Mexican director and his son Jonas Cuaron, was greeted with hearty applause, not only for its awe-inspiring visuals but also for Sandra Bullock and George Clooney's first-rate performances under the most constrained of circumstances. Warner Bros. will release the film stateside Oct. 4.  I would frankly be shocked if the film isn't nominated for Oscars for best picture, best director, best actress (Bullock), best original screenplay, best cinematography, best film editing, best sound editing, best sound mixing and best visual effects. I think best supporting actor (Clooney) is also within the realm of possibility.
 
It may sound hyperbolic, but Gravity is truly one of the most visually magnificent films that I have ever seen. It creates a sense of genuine majesty and wonder about space and space travel that has long been absent from the big screen. Indeed, I imagine that the experience of watching it is akin only to the experience that I've often heard described of seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Wars during their initial runs. This is attributable to a blend of Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography and the visual effects work supervised by Tim Webber, both of whom are longtime Cuaron collaborators. I can't even begin to tell you how the actors were made to appear gravity-free, but I can tell you it never rang false. The same can be said for the film's sound work, which, unlike that on many other films set in space, adheres to the scientific reality of what space is actually like: almost silent, even when chaos is occurring.
 
As for the portrayals of the astronauts in peril, who start out as strangers but bond under pressure, one couldn't have asked for more from Bullock and Clooney, who happen to be old pals in real life. Clooney's Kowalski is the higher ranking of the two, but Bullock's Stone is the main protagonist, and, thanks to his encouragement and guidance, she develops the confidence and will necessary to fight the odds. Bullock, struggling to remain calm under pressure, evokes memories of her star-making performance in 1994's Speed, 19 years and one best actress Oscar ago. Clooney, meanwhile, puts his famous charm to good use, and is rewarded with one dramatic scene, in particular, that could earn him a return ticket to the Oscars.
 
The legacy of this film, apart from great reviews and big box office, might well turn out to be that it restores interest in space exploration, which has long been waning, even in spite of the dangers so frighteningly depicted in the film. That would be the ultimate testament to what a magnificent moviegoing experience Gravity provides.

 

'Gravity': What The Critics Are Saying
(By Stephanie Chan, Hollywood Reporter, 28 August 2013)
 
Gravity tells the story of a medical engineer named Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) who embarks on her first space shuttle mission, accompanied by astronaut Matt Kowalsky (Clooney). When an accident happens during a space walk, they must work together to survive.  The Alfonso Cuaron-directed movie will make its North America premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival this year before opening wide on Oct. 4.
 
See what Hollywood critics have to say about Gravity:
The Hollywood Reporter's chief film critic Todd McCarthy was impressed by the sci-fi drama, "At once the most realistic and beautifully choreographed film ever set in space, Gravity is a thrillingly realized survival story spiked with interludes of breath-catching tension and startling surprise." McCarthy added, "Graced by exemplary 3D work and bound to look great in Imax, the film seems set to soar commercially around the world."
Geoffrey Macnab from The Independent described the film as "a visual triumph even if its storytelling is less than sure-footed." The U.K. reporter noted that the "opening scenes have a mesmerizing, abstract beauty," but thought there was one issue with the movie. "The one problem with Gravity is that the plotting never quite matches its visual imagination. There isn’t the same urgency or plausibility here found in J.C. Chandor's recent, similarly themed All Is Lost (which featured Robert Redford as a lone sailor whose boat is sinking.)," wrote Macnab. "Even so, this is a film that, at its best, really does induce a sense of wonder."
The Telegraph's Robbie Collin also found the film visually compelling, "They spin through empty space, and so does the camera, in a series of moves so intricate and yet so natural that only after you leave the cinema do you realise the feats of visual choreography involved." Bullock's performance didn't go unnoticed either, "Bullock is the undoubted star and is seriously good here, giving Stone an inner steeliness that only the very deepest pangs of despair can unsheathe."
The Guardian's Xan Brooks, who was left uninterested by last year's Venice Film Festival opener, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, said "Gravity provides an altogether more assured curtain-raiser. It comes blowing in from the ether like some weightless black nightmare, hanging planet Earth at crazy angles behind the action."
Over at Screen International, Mark Adams stated that "There will be little disappointment from audiences who are likely to be thrilled by the well-sustained edge-of-the-seat thrills as this space-bound film follows the well-worn disaster movie format and keeps things tense right up until the final scenes." Adams was also awed by Gravity's visuals, describing how director Cuaron "mixes almost balletic, spiraling, scenes as space craft are torn apart and mere humans in delicate space suits are thrown into the void with moments of quiet beauty as the two intrepid astronauts relish the beautiful vistas and deadly beauty they find themselves amongst."

 
 


Sandra (Bullock) + Melissa (McCarthy) = A Real Hollywood Friendship
(By Anne-Marie O’Neil, Parade Magazine, June 6, 2013)
 
In this Sunday’s issue, Parade interviews Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy, stars of the upcoming buddy-cop comedy The Heat. Although the two actresses hadn’t met before working on this movie, they developed the kind of camaraderie that even Oscar and Emmy winners can’t fake.  Director Paul Feig (Bridesmaids) notes that they were “inseparable…normally after movies, those friendships go away. Theirs blossomed.” Back in L.A., Bullock and her 3-year-old son, Louis, regularly spend quality time with McCarthy, her actor husband Ben Falcone, and their daughters, Vivian, 6, and Georgette, 3. In the Parade interview they compare notes on working together and their mixed feelings about being working moms; they also rib each other mercilessly.  Read a few highlights from the interview below and be sure to check out the full story in this weekend’s issue of Parade.

On working together:
Sandra: “I’ve always wanted to do a female buddy film, the kind the guys get to do. This didn’t have anything to do with getting a guy, and it didn’t involve shoe shopping…I’d seen Bridesmaids, and I said, ‘If Melissa McCarthy wants to work with me…’ The first week I was like, ‘What is she doing? That’s not in the script.’ I was the lone actor, jack-of-one-trade, in a room full of improv actors and stand-up comedians. I mean, you should just listen to the stuff that comes out of her mouth.”

Melissa (to Sandra): “Before I knew you—don’t listen, I don’t want you to get cocky—I was asked in an interview who I thought was funny, and I said you…I love to watch someone who just goes for it and isn’t worried about whether it’s silly or awkward or unflattering.”
On what they have in common:
Sandra: “Having kids connected us on a deeper level. And the things we’re obsessed with outside of being a mom are the same, too: construction and house renovation…. We’re kindred spirits in that world. If we had a beer den, with Barcaloungers—but our version of that—it’d be great.”
Melissa: “There’d be fabric swatches everywhere. And reclaimed wood.”
On whether they worry about being good or bad moms:
Sandra: “Every single second of every single day…I don’t know if I feel like a bad mom, but at the end of the day I’m always plagued with, did I do enough? Should I go in a different direction? But I also know that my entire life revolves around Louis.”
Melissa: “It plagues me. I feel intensely guilty for working…You have to be able to provide for your kids. But I feel like it’s a weird modern phenomenon that you always feel guilty for it.”
On the problems created by fame and paparazzi…and L.A.:
Sandra: ”We’re adults, and we’re fair game—not that I like being photographed going in and out of school in my sweatpants. But I instinctively throw things over Louis’s head….He doesn’t like [the paparazzi]. He gives them the stink-eye, and they’re like, ‘That’s such an angry kid,’ but I look at them and say, ‘Only when you guys are around’…I don’t raise Louis in Hollywood. I raise him in my world. To me the good thing about living in L.A. is diversity in lifestyle choices, color, and religion. I want Louis to look around and see every color under the sun. I also have the luxury of splitting my time between L.A. and Austin.”
Melissa:  ”Strangers shouldn’t be allowed to take a picture of your child and sell it for profit. They think, ‘We’re putting out a product,’ but you’re putting out a child….Ben and I have absolutely nothing to do with the Hollywood that’s all actors and the Sunset Strip. We crave talking to people who do different things and are passionate about it. We have some of the most rock-solid, lovely friends in the world.”

 

Sandra Bullock Performs Naked Intervention on Chelsea Handler

Sandra Bullock is sharing the naked truth with Chelsea Handler.

In a clip that aired during Monday’s episode of Chelsea Lately, Bullock got extremely loud and incredibly close to the late-night host to drop some wisdom on her about her hosting skills.  The clip starts out with Handler naked in the shower, and then the Blind Side actress – also in the buff – appears. Bullock quickly begins telling Handler that she needs to worry about “pulling her shit together with this fancy new stage.”
 
“You have a responsibility to be a respectable talk show host. This comes directly from Oprah's
mouth to my ear, to my mouth, out of my mouth, into your ear, down your body, out your vagina, up my vagina and out my a--,” says Bullock at a rapid pace.  Bullock tells Handler to “lay off the booze,” and “stop sleeping with your guests.”  “That is why I've not done your show -- I do not want sleep with you,” she says.
 
Bullock goes on to slap Handler a couple times as her tirade continues. There’s more talk about Oprah and urinating before Bullock turns the talk to Handler’s body.   “All of this is disgusting. This is f—-ing sick. Bye,” Bullock says before leaving.  Handler’s guests on Monday night in her new studio included Jennifer Aniston, who got a little teary when speaking about her engagement to Justin Theroux.  Chandler has been celebrating her move to her new studio for several weeks by sharing interesting videos, including one featuring Cameron Diaz and Gwyneth Paltrow performing a dirty rap.


 

 
 


 

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

The Plight Of The Honeybee

(By Bryan Walsh, Time magazine, Monday, Aug. 19, 2013)

You can thank the Apis Mellifera, better known as the Western honeybee, for 1 in every 3 mouthfuls of food you'll eat today. From the almond orchards of central California--where each spring billions of honeybees from across the U.S. arrive to pollinate a multibillion-dollar crop--to the blueberry bogs of Maine, the bees are the unsung, unpaid laborers of the American agricultural system, adding more than $15 billion in value to farming each year. In June, a Whole Foods store in Rhode Island, as part of a campaign to highlight the importance of honeybees, temporarily removed from its produce section all the food that depended on pollinators. Of 453 items, 237 vanished, including apples, lemons and zucchini and other squashes. Honeybees "are the glue that holds our agricultural system together," wrote journalist Hannah Nordhaus in her 2011 book, The Beekeeper's Lament.

And now that glue is failing. Around 2006, commercial beekeepers began noticing something disturbing: their honeybees were disappearing. Beekeepers would open their hives and find them full of honeycomb, wax, even honey--but devoid of actual bees. As reports from worried beekeepers rolled in, scientists coined an appropriately apocalyptic term for the mystery malady: colony-collapse disorder (CCD). Suddenly beekeepers found themselves in the media spotlight, the public captivated by the horror-movie mystery of CCD. Seven years later, honeybees are still dying on a scale rarely seen before, and the reasons remain mysterious. One-third of U.S. honeybee colonies died or disappeared during the past winter, a 42% increase over the year before and well above the 10% to 15% losses beekeepers used to experience in normal winters.
Though beekeepers can replenish dead hives over time, the high rates of colony loss are putting intense pressure on the industry and on agriculture. There were just barely enough viable honeybees in the U.S. to service this spring's vital almond pollination in California, putting a product worth nearly $4 billion at risk. Almonds are a big deal--they're the Golden State's most valuable agricultural export, worth more than twice as much as its iconic wine grapes. And almonds, totally dependent on honeybees, are a bellwether of the larger problem. For fruits and vegetables as diverse as cantaloupes, cranberries and cucumbers, pollination can be a farmer's only chance to increase maximum yield. Eliminate the honeybee and agriculture would be permanently diminished. "The take-home message is that we are very close to the edge," says Jeff Pettis, the research leader at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Bee Research Laboratory. "It's a roll of the dice now."

That's why scientists like Pettis are working hard to figure out what's bugging the bees. Agricultural pesticides were an obvious suspect--specifically a popular new class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids, which seem to affect bees and other insects even at what should be safe doses. Other researchers focused on bee-killing pests like the accurately named Varroa destructor, a parasitic mite that has ravaged honeybee colonies since it was accidentally introduced into the U.S. in the 1980s. Others still have looked at bacterial and viral diseases. The lack of a clear culprit only deepened the mystery and the fear, heralding what some greens call a "second silent spring," a reference to Rachel Carson's breakthrough 1962 book, which is widely credited with helping launch the environmental movement. A quote that's often attributed to Albert Einstein became a slogan: "If the bee disappears from the surface of the globe, man would have no more than four years to live."

One problem: experts doubt that Einstein ever said those words, but the misattribution is characteristic of the confusion that surrounds the disappearance of the bees, the sense that we're inadvertently killing a species that we've tended and depended on for thousands of years. The loss of the honeybees would leave the planet poorer and hungrier, but what's really scary is the fear that bees may be a sign of what's to come, a symbol that something is deeply wrong with the world around us. "If we don't make some changes soon, we're going to see disaster," says Tom Theobald, a beekeeper in Colorado. "The bees are just the beginning."

Sublethal Effects
If the honeybee is a victim of natural menaces like viruses and unnatural ones like pesticides, it's worth remembering that the bee itself is not a natural resident of the continent. It was imported to North America in the 17th century, and it thrived until recently because it found a perfect niche in a food system that demands crops at ever cheaper prices and in ever greater quantities. That's a man-made, mercantile ecosystem that not only has been good for the bees and beekeepers but also has meant steady business and big revenue for supermarkets and grocery stores.

Jim Doan has been keeping bees since the age of 5, but the apiary genes in his family go back even further. Doan's father paid his way to college with the proceeds of his part-time beekeeping, and in 1973 he left the bond business to tend bees full time. Bees are even in the Doan family's English coat of arms. Although Jim went to college with the aim of becoming an agriculture teacher, the pull of the beekeeping business was too great.  For a long time, that business was very good. The family built up its operation in the town of Hamlin, in western New York, making money from honey and from pollination contracts with farmers. At the peak of his business, Doan estimates he was responsible for pollinating 1 out of 10 apples grown in New York, running nearly 6,000 hives, one of the biggest such operations in the state. He didn't mind the inevitable stings--"you have to be willing to be punished"--and he could endure the early hours. "We made a lot of honey, and we made a lot of money," he says.
All that ended in 2006, the year CCD hit the mainstream, and Doan's hives weren't spared. That winter, when he popped the covers to check on his bees--tipped off by a fellow beekeeper who experienced one of the first documented cases of CCD--Doan found nothing. "There were hundreds of hives in the backyard and no bees in them," he says. In the years since, he has experienced repeated losses, his bees growing sick and dying. To replace lost hives, Doan needs to buy new queens and split his remaining colonies, which reduces honey production and puts more pressure on his few remaining healthy bees. Eventually it all became unsustainable. In 2013, after decades in the business, Doan gave up. He sold the 112 acres (45 hectares) he owns--land he had been saving to sell after his retirement--and plans to sell his beekeeping equipment as well, provided he can find someone to buy it. Doan is still keeping some bees in the meantime, maintaining a revenue stream while considering his options. Those options include a job at Walmart.

Doan and I walk through his backyard, which is piled high with bee boxes that would resemble filing cabinets, if filing cabinets hummed and vibrated. Doan lends me a protective jacket and a bee veil that covers my face. He walks slowly among the boxes--partly because he's a big guy and partly because bees don't appreciate fast moves--and he spreads smoke in advance, which masks the bees' alarm pheromones and keeps them calm. He opens each box and removes a few frames--the narrowly spaced scaffolds on which the bees build their honeycombs--checking to see how a new population he imported from Florida is doing. Some frames are choked with crawling bees, flowing honey and healthy brood cells, each of which contains an infant bee. But other frames seem abandoned, even the wax in the honeycomb crumbling. Doan lays these boxes--known as dead-outs--on their side.  He used to love checking on his bees. "Now it's gotten to the point where I look at the bees every few weeks, and it scares me," he says. "Will it be a good day, will they be alive, or will I just find a whole lot of junk? It depresses the hell out of me."
Doan's not alone in walking away from such unhappy work. The number of commercial beekeepers has dropped by some three-quarters over the past 15 years, and while all of them may agree that the struggle is just not worth it anymore, they differ on which of the possible causes is most to blame. Doan has settled on the neonicotinoid pesticides--and there's a strong case to be made against them.

The chemicals are used on more than 140 different crops as well as in home gardens, meaning endless chances of exposure for any insect that alights on the treated plants. Doan shows me studies of pollen samples taken from his hives that indicate the presence of dozens of chemicals, including the neonicotinoids. He has testified before Congress about the danger the chemicals pose and is involved in a lawsuit with other beekeepers and with green groups that calls on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend a pair of pesticides in the neonicotinoid class. "The impacts [from the pesticides] are not marginal, and they're not academic," says Peter Jenkins, a lawyer for the Center for Food Safety and a lead counsel in the suit. "They pose real threats to the viability of pollinators."
American farmers have been dousing their fields with pesticides for decades, meaning that honeybees--which can fly as far as 5 miles (8 km) in search of forage--have been exposed to toxins since well before the dawn of CCD. But neonicotinoids, which were introduced in the mid-1990s and became widespread in the years that followed, are different. The chemicals are known as systematics, which means that seeds are soaked in them before they're planted. Traces of the chemicals are eventually passed on to every part of the mature plant--including the pollen and nectar a bee might come into contact with--and can remain for much longer than other pesticides do. There's really no way to prevent bees from being exposed to some level of neonicotinoids if the pesticides have been used nearby. "We have growing evidence that neonicotinoids can have dangerous effects, especially in conjunction with other pathogens," says Peter Neumann, head of the Institute of Bee Health at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Ironically, neonicotinoids are actually safer for farmworkers because they can be applied more precisely than older classes of pesticides, which disperse into the air. Bees, however, seem uniquely sensitive to the chemicals. Studies have shown that neonicotinoids attack their nervous system, interfering with their flying and navigation abilities without killing them immediately. "The scientific literature is exploding now with work on sublethal impacts on bees," says James Frazier, an entomologist at Penn State University. The delayed but cumulative effects of repeated exposure might explain why colonies keep dying off year after year despite beekeepers' best efforts. It's as if the bees were being poisoned very slowly.
It's undeniably attractive to blame the honeybee crisis on neonicotinoids. The widespread adoption of these pesticides roughly corresponds to the spike in colony loss, and neonicotinoids are, after all, meant to kill insects. Chemicals are ubiquitous--a recent study found that honeybee pollen was contaminated, on average, with nine different pesticides and fungicides. Best of all, if the problem is neonicotinoids, the solution is simple: ban them. That's what the European Commission decided to do this year, putting a two-year restriction on the use of some neonicotinoids. But while the EPA is planning to review neonicotinoids, a European-style ban is unlikely--in part because the evidence is still unclear. Beekeepers in Australia have been largely spared from CCD even though neonicotinoids are used there, while France has continued to suffer bee losses despite restricting the use of the pesticides since 1999. Pesticide makers argue that actual levels of neonicotinoid exposure in the field are too low to be the main culprit in colony loss. "We've dealt with insecticides for a long time," says Randy Oliver, a beekeeper who has done independent research on CCD. "I'm not thoroughly convinced this is a major issue."

Hostile Terrain
Even if pesticides are a big part of the bee-death mystery, there are other suspects. Beekeepers have always had to protect their charges from dangers such as the American foulbrood--a bacterial disease that kills developing bees--and the small hive beetle, a pest that can infiltrate and contaminate colonies. Bloodiest of all is the multidecade war against the Varroa destructor, a microscopic mite that burrows into the brood cells that host baby bees. The mites are equipped with a sharp, two-pronged tongue that can pierce a bee's exoskeleton and suck its hemolymph--the fluid that serves as blood in bees. And since the Varroa can also spread a number of other diseases--they're the bee equivalent of a dirty hypodermic needle--an uncontrolled mite infestation can quickly lead to a dying hive.  The Varroa first surfaced in the U.S. in 1987--likely from infected bees imported from South America--and it has killed billions of bees since. Countermeasures used by beekeepers, including chemical miticides, have proved only partly effective. "When the Varroa mite made its way in, it changed what we had to do," says Jerry Hayes, who heads Monsanto's commercial bee work. "It's not easy to try to kill a little bug on a big bug."

Other researchers have pointed a finger at fungal infections like the parasite Nosema ceranae, possibly in league with a pathogen like the invertebrate iridescent virus. But again, the evidence isn't conclusive: some CCD-afflicted hives show evidence of fungi or mites or viruses, and others don't. Some beekeepers are skeptical that there's an underlying problem at all, preferring to blame CCD on what they call PPB--piss-poor beekeeping, a failure of beekeepers to stay on top of colony health. But while not every major beekeeper has suffered catastrophic loss, colony failures have been widespread for long enough that it seems perverse to blame the human victims. "I've been keeping bees for decades," says Doan. "It's not like I suddenly forgot how to do it in 2006."
There's also the simple fact that beekeepers live in a country that is becoming inhospitable to honeybees. To survive, bees need forage, which means flowers and wild spaces. Our industrialized agricultural system has conspired against that, transforming the countryside into vast stretches of crop monocultures--factory fields of corn or soybeans that are little more than a desert for honeybees starved of pollen and nectar. Under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the government rents land from farmers and sets it aside, taking it out of production to conserve soil and preserve wildlife. But as prices of commodity crops like corn and soybeans have skyrocketed, farmers have found that they can make much more money planting on even marginal land than they can from the CRP rentals. This year, just 25.3 million acres (10.2 million hectares) will be held in the CRP, down by one-third from the peak in 2007 and the smallest area in reserve since 1988.

Lonely Spring
For all the enemies that are massing against honeybees, a bee-pocalypse isn't quite upon us yet. Even with the high rates of annual loss, the number of managed honeybee colonies in the U.S. has stayed stable over the past 15 years, at about 2.5 million. That's still significantly down from the 5.8 million colonies that were kept in 1946, but that shift had more to do with competition from cheap imported honey and the general rural depopulation of the U.S. over the past half-century. (The number of farms in the U.S. fell from a peak of 6.8 million in 1935 to just 2.2 million today, even as food production has ballooned.) Honeybees have a remarkable ability to regenerate, and year after year the beekeepers who remain have been able to regrow their stocks after a bad loss. But the burden on beekeepers is becoming unbearable. Since 2006 an estimated 10 million beehives have been lost, at a cost of some $2 billion. "We can replace the bees, but we can't replace beekeepers with 40 years of experience," says Tim Tucker, the vice president of the American Beekeeping Federation.

As valuable as honeybees are, the food system wouldn't collapse without them. The backbone of the world's diet--grains like corn, wheat and rice--is self-pollinating. But our dinner plates would be far less colorful, not to mention far less nutritious, without blueberries, cherries, watermelons, lettuce and the scores of other plants that would be challenging to raise commercially without honeybee pollination. There could be replacements. In southwest China, where wild bees have all but died out thanks to massive pesticide use, farmers laboriously hand-pollinate pear and apple trees with brushes. Scientists at Harvard are experimenting with tiny robobees that might one day be able to pollinate autonomously. But right now, neither solution is technically or economically feasible. The government could do its part by placing tighter regulations on the use of all pesticides, especially during planting season. There needs to be more support for the CRP too to break up the crop monocultures that are suffocating honeybees. One way we can all help is by planting bee-friendly flowers in backyard gardens and keeping them free of pesticides. The country, says Dennis vanEngelsdorp, a research scientist at the University of Maryland who has studied CCD since it first emerged, is suffering from a "nature deficit disorder"--and the bees are paying the price.
But the reality is that barring a major change in the way the U.S. grows food, the pressure on honeybees won't subside. There are more than 1,200 pesticides currently registered for use in the U.S.; nobody pretends that number will be coming down by a lot. Instead, the honeybee and its various pests are more likely to be changed to fit into the existing agricultural system. Monsanto is working on an RNA-interference technology that can kill the Varroa mite by disrupting the way its genes are expressed. The result would be a species-specific self-destruct mechanism--a much better alternative than the toxic and often ineffective miticides beekeepers have been forced to use. Meanwhile, researchers at Washington State University are developing what will probably be the world's smallest sperm bank--a bee-genome repository that will be used to crossbreed a more resilient honeybee from the 28 recognized subspecies of the insect around the world.

Already, commercial beekeepers have adjusted to the threats facing their charges by spending more to provide supplemental feed to their colonies. Supplemental feed raises costs, and some scientists worry that replacing honey with sugar or corn syrup can leave bees less capable of fighting off infections. But beekeepers living adrift in a nutritional wasteland have little choice. The beekeeping business may well begin to resemble the industrial farming industry it works with: fewer beekeepers running larger operations that produce enough revenue to pay for the equipment and technologies needed to stay ahead of an increasingly hostile environment. "Bees may end up managed like cattle, pigs and chicken, where we put them in confinement and bring the food to them," says Oliver, the beekeeper and independent researcher. "You could do feedlot beekeeping."  That's something no one in the beekeeping world wants to see. But it may be the only way to keep honeybees going. And as long as there are almonds, apples, apricots and scores of other fruits and vegetables that need pollinating--and farmers willing to pay for the service--beekeepers will find a way.
So if the honeybee survives, it likely won't resemble what we've known for centuries. But it could be worse. For all the recent attention on the commercial honeybee, wild bees are in far worse shape. In June, after a landscaping company sprayed insecticide on trees, 50,000 wild bumblebees in Oregon were killed--the largest such mass poisoning on record. Unlike the honeybee, the bumblebee has no human caretakers. Globally, up to 100,000 animal species die off each year--nearly every one of them without fanfare or notice. This is what happens when one species--that would be us--becomes so widespread and so dominant that it crowds out almost everything else. It won't be a second silent spring that dawns; we'll still have the buzz of the feedlot honeybee in our ears. But humans and our handful of preferred species may find that all of our seasons have become lonelier ones.

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2149141,00.html




The $15 Billion Bee In President Obama’s Bonnet
(By Isabelle Khurshudyan, Washington Post, 23 June 2014)

Honeybees have a sweet new ally: President Obama.  Plans for a “Pollinator Health Task Force” to help save bees from their mysterious decline were announced Friday in a presidential memorandum.  Why Obama’s worried: The decline of bees could sting the economy.  “Honey bee pollination alone adds more than $15 billion in value to agricultural crops each year in the United States,” the administration said in the release. “Over the past few decades, there has been a significant loss of pollinators, including honey bees, native bees, birds, bats, and butterflies, from the environment. The problem is serious and requires immediate attention to ensure the sustainability of our food production systems, avoid additional economic impact on the agricultural sector, and protect the health of the environment.”

Last winter, 23.2 percent of the country’s managed honey bee colonies died, according to a report by the Bee Informed Partnership, which is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Deaths are fewer than during the 2012-2013 winter, but still higher than the “acceptable” rate of about 19 percent, the report said.  The task force will have 180 days to create a strategy to prevent future bee loss. Specifically, the task force will investigate how to reduce pollinator exposure to pesticides found to harm bumblebees by interfering with their homing abilities, according to two studies detailed by Reuters.  In a 2011 United Nations report, U.N. Environment Program Executive Director Achim Steiner said “the way humanity manages or mismanages its nature-based assets, including pollinators, will in part define our collective future in the 21st century.”

Steiner said in the report that of 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of the world’s food, more than 70 are pollinated by bees.  “Human beings have fabricated the illusion that in the 21st century they have the technological prowess to be independent of nature,” Steiner said in the release. “Bees underline the reality that we are more, not less dependent on nature’s services in a world of close to seven billion people.”  The bee team will be co-chaired by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy.


 
 

Do Bees Freak You Out? Well, President Obama Wants To Keep Them Around.
(By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, 23 June 2014)

Not many White House fact sheets mention honeybees and Monarch butterflies. But one issued on Friday talked about them in detail, explaining why President Obama had signed a memorandum establishing the first-ever federal pollinator strategy.  The memo creates a new inter-agency task force charged with developing a federal strategy to protect pollinators, which aims to stave off the declines that pollinators such as honeybees, butterflies and bats have suffered in recent years. Obama instructed all federal agencies to use their powers "to broadly advance honey bee and other pollinator health and habitat," and the Agriculture Department announced $8 million in incentives to farmers and ranchers in five states who establish new habitats for honeybees.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday "there is a clear economic incentive for us" to protect pollinators because the crops they pollinate "have an impact of about $24 billion a year on the United States economy.  And we’re going to continue to work in collaborative fashion with industry, with state and local leaders, with private landowners to address this problem," Earnest said.  In fact, one-third of our food supply--the fruits, vegetables and nuts we eat--are pollinated by bees. But the current U.S. honeybee population is now less than half of what it was in 1945.  The president's interest in pollinators is not simply economic, however: he has raised the issue with some of his top aides. White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said in an interview this spring with Politico's Mike Allen that Obama had mentioned an article to him that had to do with "the disappearing bees and the fact this is an issue that there are fewer bees, and this has to do with climate change."

And the White House senior adviser for nutrition policy Sam Kass--who also cooks dinner for the Obama family most weeknights--has also discussed the issue in depth with the president. It's one of the reasons the White House vegetable garden expanded to include a pollinator's garden this year.  And if the Democrats have their way, Washington will have one more high-profile bee advocate after the mid-term elections: Michael Eggman, who is hoping to unseat Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.). Eggman, a third-generation beekeeper and self-described member of the "beekeeper mafia," praised the administration for taking on the issue, "although until this point, not enough has been done.  Colony Collapse Disorder appears to be a crisis with multiple factors including pesticide use and catastrophic climate change," Eggman said in a statement. "I am hopeful that the administration will carefully examine all possible causes and all potential solutions."  In other words, if you're rooting for bees to disappear, you might want to reassess. There are people in high places who are on their side.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/23/do-bees-freak-you-out-well-president-obama-wants-to-keep-them-around/
 
 

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Airline Industry

How The Airlines Put The Squeeze On Passengers
(By Bill Saporito, Time magazine, 09 September 2013)

If you want some insight into why the department of justice put a gate hold on the merger between American Airlines and US Airways, here's a number to ponder: 13 million seats--gone.  That's how many airplane seats have disappeared over the past year--removed from the system by airlines as they reduce capacity. According to the website Aviation DataMiner, these cuts have come from across the industry. Only ultra-low-cost carriers Spirit and Allegiant are growing.  This means life in the skies will not be improving anytime soon: no empty seats, no room overhead and stressed-out staffs. With fewer seats available, the domestic load factor--the percentage of seats filled--reached a record of 87.1% in June. And as there is little or no capacity growth in the forecast, the future of flying promises more cramp for more cash.

That reality became painfully obvious in a two-day, three-airline lap around the country in late August (LGA to FLL / MIA to LAX to JFK).  "You can't go out with flights that aren't filled," says Blair Pomeroy, an aviation expert with consultancy Oliver Wyman. "The load factor is up 20 points in the last two decades. They have gotten that increase by eliminating marginal flights." Fares are rising because airlines have stopped chasing market share. Instead, they've tried to maximize profit from existing customers by upsizing or downsizing their equipment and adjusting timetables. That means, in some cases, making fewer trips with larger jets. Or sometimes just the opposite: flying smaller jets that are cheaper to operate. This is why you are stuck on a 70-seat Embraer 175 for close to four hours from Pittsburgh to Denver rather than a more comfortable Boeing 737 or Airbus A320. 

At the same time, the industry continues to harvest what it calls ancillary revenue (and what passengers call fees--along with a few other words) for everything from checked baggage to so-called premium economy seats, priority boarding, trip insurance, movies, meals and drinks.  The fees are part of a strategy to "decommoditize" air travel, as Delta said in a recent presentation to analysts, by focusing on a "customized and differentiated experience." Translated, that means you pay to get on the plane, then keep paying until you reach the level of comfort and service that matches your lifestyle or pocketbook, from zero extra for a middle seat in the way, way back of a fully loaded wide-body to a vast sum to be cosseted in business class. The major carriers, of course, also try to lock in their less budget-restricted corporate customers with global alliances and frequent-flyer programs that offer better seats and upgrades. But even for the top ranks of flyers, belts are tightening--Delta announced that it would be adding a spending qualification for its medallion level. "Every customer," says Marty St. George, head of marketing for the low-cost carrier JetBlue, "has to decide what they value."

The fare-and-fee strategy has rewarded the industry with plump profits. Last year, Delta's net profit hit $1.6 billion on rising revenue and profit per passenger; the industry's pretax profit margin is up 8 percentage points since 2009. More important, carriers have developed the operational discipline to sustain these profit levels for years, as long as fuel prices remain manageable. "The legacy airlines used to be run like government agencies and not hungry businesses," says Pomeroy. "Those days are over." Indeed. In July, American racked up $349 million in earnings. Not a bad bounce back from being broke.

How did we get here? You have to go back to 2008, when oil reached $147 a barrel and jet fuel peaked at $3.89 a gallon. The domestic airline industry lost nearly $10 billion that year. Struggling Northwest Airlines landed in the arms of Delta, dooming Northwest's struggling Memphis hub; for Delta, it was so long, Cincinnati. In 2010, United united with Continental. Cleveland is getting nervous about being dumped. And US Airways' earlier merger with America West ended Pittsburgh's hub dream. In merging, the combined companies shrank their footprints--and their costs.  As of 2012, jet-fuel prices were roughly at the same level as in 2008, yet the industry made about $2.3 billion. A new age has dawned.

The mixed glories of the new aviation age are on full display at New York City's LaGuardia Airport, where I wait in the luggage-check-in line for a Spirit Airlines flight headed for Fort Lauderdale, Fla. The scene is chaotic as passengers lugging shopping bags, boxes and all manner of containers frantically attempt to repack so they can avoid bag charges.  The flight looks full despite a 6:50 a.m. departure. Spirit often flies vampire hours to keep its planes in the air as much as possible. How about a 10 p.m. flight to Plattsburgh, N.Y., from Fort Lauderdale, and a return at 1:30 a.m.? It's filled with Canadians escaping high-priced fares in Toronto.  On board, seating is tight. Spirit gets 218 passengers on its Airbus 321s vs. 159 for, say, JetBlue's Airbus 321s. The guy sitting next to me, in the middle seat, has his knees jammed into the seat in front of him. Because I paid $25 extra to get a window seat next to the emergency exit, there's no chair in front of me and I can stretch out my 6-ft. 2-in. frame. The first row goes for another $50. Advertising is pasted on the overhead compartments and tray-table backs.

Spirit has become today's most profitable airline by attracting passengers who otherwise wouldn't fly: low-margin customers the network carriers no longer desire. "The simplest way we describe the Spirit market," says the company's CEO, Ben Baldanza, "is the people who pay for the tickets themselves."  Here's how Baldanza summarizes the changes he sees in the industry: "Less competition, less capacity, fewer intervening marginal hubs." He means, for instance, that St. Louis, once a hub for airlines like TWA and American, is no longer a Western gateway. And good luck finding direct service to Omaha--or much of any service to Sioux Falls, S.D. Closing midsize hubs "created an industry that is financially more stable for the first time in a long, long time," Baldanza tells Time. It's good for consumers in the sense that a stable industry has value, but not so good in that there are fewer flights between midsize cities--and some smaller markets have lost service completely.

Baldanza has been working hard to provide more options and city pairs. In doing so, he is shaking up the industry. After taking charge of the then money-losing Spirit in 2006, Baldanza analyzed all the world's airlines and reached a conclusion. "The airlines that were perennially successful were really at the extremes," he says. "We realized they were either high touch like Emirates, or low cost like Ryanair."  He went low cost, unleashing a highly disciplined, highly discounted airline that is growing 20% annually with industry-leading profit margins. At Spirit, price is the product. The average base fare is $79, which gets you a seat. Everything else is extra. Spirit charges for checked bags as well as those in overhead bins. If you want an assigned seat, a middle, aisle, window or exit-row seat, that will cost you, based on a sliding scale. Would you like some water? Two bucks. The average passenger typically spends an extra $30 for add-ons, but the average total cost, at $110, still beats most of the major carriers.  Baldanza has his sights set on expansion. He figures there are at least 400 city pairs in the U.S., Caribbean and South American markets--or roughly any market where 200 people a day are flying. "We have more growth opportunities than we have airplanes on order," he says. In the airline industry, that's revolutionary, even if it's not exactly the kind of revolution that brings a smile to the face of a frequent flyer.

I am flying with a senior citizen out of Miami--that would be the jet, not a fellow passenger. I'm on one of those aging Boeing 757s that have served as industry workhorses for years. This one is owned by American and has all the hallmarks of its age: the upholstery is tired, and the first-class seats are old school, not much different from the coach seats (or so I tell myself as I head back to Row 17). The in-flight entertainment is hilariously outmoded--ancient screens suspended from the cabin ceiling with your choice of the same movie. A woman behind me remarks that she was expecting something "where you could change the channels."

American and United have ordered hundreds of new jets, which theoretically could make life better in the air. The 787 Dreamliner, for instance, has a cabin altitude pressure of 6,000 ft., meaning you will suffer less from jet lag. But you might suffer elsewhere on the jet. Boeing has configured the long-haul Dreamliner with eight seats across in the coach section, with an option for nine. Likewise, it has offered its extended-range 777-300ER with nine seats across the back, with an option for 10. Typically, only charter outfits opt for sardine seating. But some airlines, like United and Japan's ANA, are converting to or ordering nine across in their Dreamliners. The loser gets seat 33-F, LAX to Tokyo. And on its 777s, American has opted for 10 seats, 3-4-3 across (meaning each row has four middle seats). Aviation designers are even broaching the idea of making middle seats narrower to offer the cheapest of the cheap seats.

The next day, homeward bound, I'm on another 757. A different carrier. And a better seat. An upgrade! This time it's United, from LAX to JFK, and there's evidence that the airline, newly consolidated with Continental, is trying to raise its game after a rocky start. The Los Angeles--to--New York and San Francisco--to--New York flights are among the most profitable routes in the U.S., and United has upped the ante in business class. The company has given up a couple of rows of coach seats to install lie-flat seating and everything else you would normally associate with transoceanic travel. American and Delta have no option but to match the offer, and they are doing so.  The seats have just about everything--and they should, given that their cost to the airline can easily exceed $50,000 apiece. There's a shelf for things like mobile phones. The individual in-flight entertainment includes movies, audio, games and the ability to connect your iPad or iPhone if you have the right cable. There's a USB port. And there are meals, served on actual plates, with unlimited wine and beverages. (This being a morning flight, coffee and juice will suffice.)

Business-class seats in the transcontinental market are typically priced from $3,000 to nearly $5,000. That's what has lately lured JetBlue into the premium market. It will begin business-class service on the coast-to-coast route next year, at what will likely be half the current market prices. "Our competitors all have that front-cabin product that creates a subsidy for them," says JetBlue's St. George. In other words, United can use the revenue generated in its business class to offer cutthroat coach fares against JetBlue's single-cabin coach offering.  Experts say this move by JetBlue and Southwest's expansion into international travel suggest that the days when low-cost airlines differentiated themselves from legacy carriers are over. They are now all fighting for the core corporate customer, plus as many leisure travelers as they can entice. Southwest, which thrived on its one-size-fits-all model, is now separating the herd with early-check-in fees; having acquired AirTran, it also has business-class seats to sell. "It's a hybrid world," says Pomeroy. St. George rejects that idea and says JetBlue is instead bringing innovation to another overpriced market.

As the United flight approaches JFK, the pilot announces that we are arriving early. Perhaps, but that's only because there's a time cushion routinely built into airline schedules; a flight is considered on time even if it arrives up to 15 minutes late. In reality, as many as 40% of flights nationwide are late, a consequence of an outdated air-traffic-control system and carriers' squeezing everything they can out of a handful of very busy hubs. Being early, however, often just means that you get to wait on a taxiway for a departing jet to get clear of your gate. At least the chair's comfy.

American and US Airways have gone on the offensive against the Department of Justice, vowing to fight for their merger in court on the grounds that it is pro-consumer. The companies say the combined airline networks are complementary and would offer more choices to more destinations across a broader global network. For frequent flyers, there's also access to American's OneWorld alliance, a network of connections with foreign airlines. The financial stability of the merger would also ensure job stability, the two carriers say.  The DOJ argues that having a grand total of three legacy carriers will lead to higher fares, especially at dominant hubs. Said Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer: "Consumers will lose the benefit of head-to-head competition between US Airways and American on thousands of airline routes across the country--in cities big and small." In the meantime, the merger is frozen until after the trial, which may not start until next year.  Economic history tells us that consolidation in the airline industry--and in virtually any industry--leads to higher prices. But the previous mergers were necessary for the airlines to survive. The DOJ could negotiate an agreement in which the new American gives up slots at Reagan National or Charlotte, say, to foster more competition here and there. But a settlement would surely mean a reduction of service to the smaller markets now served by those airports.  That's the way it is in the airline industry these days. Whatever happens can hardly make things worse. Until it does.