Oscar nominations announced
Posted 10 February 2005 - 03:21 PM
While I agree with him that such a ban would indeed be deeply unfair and absurd, I part ways with him when he says that “it's painful to watch [the winners] —who should be permitted at least a long moment to bask—falling all over themselves to finish before they're unceremoniously drowned out and firmly ushered from the stage.” True, I guess, but I like lengthy acceptance speeches because they give me an opportunity to feel superior to the egomaniacal burbling of a Julia Roberts, or a Nicole Kidman who apparently can’t get from the subject of a sentence to its object without walking into a wall. Mean-spirited, I know.
Posted 28 February 2005 - 11:58 AM
I realize that in his later years Marlon Brando didn’t think much of the Oscars, but you would think in an evening that found time for tributes to Johnny Carson and Sidney Lumet, neither of whom had or has contributed much in the way of enduring value to the silver screen --gee, Lumet has really made a lot of mediocre movies, hasn't he? -- that the producers could have devoted more than a few seconds at the end of the annual Montage of Dead Folks to the man who was arguably the best American film actor of all time. Embarrassing.
Posted 28 February 2005 - 12:28 PM
My bright spot last night was seeing Kate Winslet in the front row either having a great time or being an extraordinary actor and acting like she was having a greta time. What charisma that woman has - and it doesn't hurt to wear a dress the colour of your eyes, especially when your eyes are bright blue!
Posted 28 February 2005 - 01:27 PM
I love Kate Winslet, and I love looking at Kate Winslet. I should hate her for the golden hair, translucent skin, incandescent smile, ability to wear that shade of blue without looking ridiculous, and for being remarkably gifted on top of that, but I don't.
Posted 28 February 2005 - 03:35 PM
Posted 01 March 2005 - 05:43 AM
I liked Chris Rock as host. Invite him back.
I love Renee Zellweger, I'll see just about any film she is in, but I have to say she looked awful. Of course she is too thin again, but that wasn't all of it. She looked drained, almost like the life was leached out of her. I wish her good health.
Posted 01 March 2005 - 07:20 AM
Posted 01 March 2005 - 09:35 AM
I think the aisle presentations were, in all, a good idea for television, as they saved the time it would have taken for the winners to run up to the stage. But I take your point, perky, that it did put those categories into a second-class status.
Posted 01 March 2005 - 10:15 AM
They presented it to the winners in the middle of an aisle for crying out loud! It's like saying, "hey, your nobody famous, so you can't come on stage to accept your award." It was odd.
Some of you are probably too young to recall a game show called “Let’s Make a Deal.” Briefly, it involved a host, Monty Hall, who wandered amidst the audience and selected lucky audience members to play the game. That’s just what it was like. I also felt sorry for other unimportant personages, like the costume designers, who had to line up on stage and then get herded off when they lost.
On the topic of actresses and weight, while Old Fashioned is correct in noting that they were no skinnier than usual, I agree with perky that they’re thinner than they should be. The gowns seem to be more and more similar these days; the actresses are so frightened of the fashion police, and justly so, that they hew to a very conservative line. So conservative were the frocks on display, in fact, that I would not have been surprised if they had been wearing corsets – some of them looked poured into the dresses.
Carbro, you didn’t miss much this time. Not that there were no good films, but all in all it was not a good year for movies.
Posted 01 March 2005 - 10:50 AM
I understand that you are probably thinking of the kind of outfits worn in the past by Cher, for example, but I would not call the backless gowns of Jennifer Garner and Melanie Griffiths, and the reveal almost-all, in-your-face cleavage of many others, conservative. Maybe I'm showing my age, and the word "conservative" certainly is a relative term, but, as currently stylish as these stunning gowns were, the only thing they left to the imagination were the shape of the actress's legs!
So conservative were the frocks on display, in fact, that I would not have been surprised if they had been wearing corsets – some of them looked poured into the dresses.
Posted 01 March 2005 - 11:28 AM
Well, Norma Shearer wore some pretty startling backless numbers back in 1932, although of course the ladies didn’t go quite so far then. I didn’t see Griffiths’ dress, but I used “conservative” in the sense that actresses and their stylists are staying very close to a certain template: solid colors, bias cut, very similar bodices, etc.
I don’t think you don’t have to look like Cher, Geena Davis, or Bjork to be daring or unusual. It seems to me, though, that in recent years the actresses are dressing not so much to excite comment as to avoid it. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Posted 01 March 2005 - 12:18 PM
Posted 01 March 2005 - 12:33 PM
Posted 01 March 2005 - 03:13 PM
The gowns seem to be more and more similar these days
There were at least 3 women who wore similar strapless, red gowns (Zellweger, Sandra Oh, Emmy Rossum).
I can't say I like the fact that all these actresses are uber-thin nowadays, but it seems to be a necessary sacrifice for their "art." Is it healthy for actors to put on weight for certain roles (or lose weight) and then quickly shed off those pounds? I can't imagine that it does them any good, but that just comes with the work they do.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases. (If it doesn't appear below, your computer's or browser's adblockers may have blocked display):