It wasn’t a very happy birthday for popular actress-turned-Halloween costume Winona Ryder. Last week the elfish “Girl, Interrupted” star celebrated the big 31 with grand Hollywood fashion–in court.
Ryder is charged with felony grand theft, burglary and vandalism. The petite Golden Globe winner could be sentenced to up to three years in prison on each count if convicted.
But can you imagine “Sticky Fingers” Ryder actually in prison? The lovelorn former model confined to those itchy utilitarian jumpsuits, arguing with the tattooed, bowl-cutted butches of Cell Block B over what to watch on television.
I hope Ryder looks good in orange! But not too good, if you know what I mean.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen. I’ll give her credit for presenting the state of California with a legitimate trial–unlike “hardcore” rappers like Eminem, who I suspect schedules biannual court hearings in a lame attempt to drum up press and street credibility. But does Ryder really deserve jail time? Let’s review the facts…
The charges against Ryder stem from an incident on Dec. 12, 2001 in which she was detained at a Saks Fifth Avenue department store. Security officer Kenneth Evans claimed she removed items from the store without paying for them.
Ryder allegedly told Evans a film director instructed her to shoplift in preparation for an upcoming role. Well, Arnold Schwartzenegger doesn’t hijack Harrier jets and blow up tanker trucks to prepare for his movies, now does he?
Though the alleged director has not been named in court, there is one piece of evidence that may inadvertently support Ryder’s claim. Evans testified in court he first became suspicious of the actress because he “thought she was a homeless person.”
Ryder probably has a dozen friends and colleagues scribbling scripts for this “mystery film.” I’d like to sit in on that board meeting.
“OK, the alibi…err…I mean the premise, is this gorgeous, down and out homeless woman–who could be a model in Paris if only she hadn’t lost faith in herself–turns to a life of petty thievery because like any gorgeous, down and out homeless woman, she needs some Prada.”
Generally, I like it. But where is the fast food tie-in?
But Evans also claims he followed Ryder into the dressing room and while spying on her through “slats in the fitting room” witnessed her cutting off sensor tags from merchandise.
Of course defense attorney Mark Gregaros has already offered the boring, clichéd “he was out to get her” suggestion.
“Did you tell your friend you were going to get her ‘one way or another?'” Gregaros asked Evans. Perry Mason, make that Judge Judy, would be in stitches.
I’m just waiting for Ryder to bring in the big guns. I can see Johnnie Cochran shouting, “It’s an OUTRAGE! That surveillance tape must be rewound if no evidence is found!”
No matter how much Ryder pokes fun at the incident, or how many “Free Winona” T-shirts are sold, she may indeed have a problem for which she needs legitimate help. One thing is for sure — the age of innocence is over and unfortunately for Winona, reality bites.