March 01, 2004

Oscar grouch

I could go on at some length about why I don't care about the Oscars this year. They dissed the extremely worthy American Splendor for Best Adapted Screenplay, in favor of Return of the King which, while a worthy flick, is inarguably a very mediocre piece of writing. But I'll save my words and instead point to this pic of Charlize Theron. Have you ever seen anyone more plasticine in your life? A picture speaks a thousand words, and to me, this one shot is the essence of Oscar fakery. And we're supposed to think she's attractive.

Stupid. Fake. Bullshit.

Posted by Chris at March 1, 2004 11:54 AM
Comments

I think you are blaming the woman for the sins of her stylist. I haven't seen Charlize Theron other than in awards shows, so I can't say if she's beautiful or a good actress. But I know Scarlett Johansson is beautiful, and did you see her at the BAFTAs? She looked terrible: same mismatched makeup; same heavily lacquered helmet-head hairdo. Perhaps she used the same people. Last night she had a gorgeous dress but similar hair and makeup problems.

Try to remember that for an actress, choosing clothes/hair/jewelry for awards is a bit like being a racing team looking for sponsors. I often see young actresses who have yet to get clout in the industry making dodgy choices about style. I think they are under a lot of pressure from friends or colleagues in the industry to use them for the big night. It must be a delicate political matter making the choice.

Look at comfortable, secure Sofia Coppola, who looked radiant last night. I imagine she is under less pressure as a non-actress and as Hollywood royalty. Nicole Kidman and Susan Sarandon looked ravishing. Even Oprah looked glamorous.

On the other hand, you do get people like Jula Roberts, who always looks splendid when she goes on Letterman, for example, and has plenty of clout, doesn't always dress so well on Oscar night. I think maybe she just has no flair for ballroom finery. Maybe that's not the way she likes to dress up, so lets somebody else do the dressing for such occasions.

Posted by: Andrew Turner at March 1, 2004 12:23 PM

> inarguably a very mediocre piece of writing.

Inarguably? Do you really mean to imply that no one would disagree that LOTR is mediocre writing?

Or that there is no case to be made that LOTR is some of the greatest epic writing of the last two centurie?

Or only that if they argued the point with you, they would lose? ;)

Posted by: Scot Hacker at March 2, 2004 11:59 AM

there is no case to be made that LOTR is some of the greatest epic writing of the last two centurie?

I'll hedge here by distinguishing the book from the film. LOTR, the book, really is great writing and great (invented) scholarship, full of thought-out languages and entire civilizations with tons of cultural details. Those same qualities do not translate at all to screenplay -- though they sure do translate to set and costume design. Peter Jackson's LOTR is a brilliant production, but the writing is poor by screen standards: stilted, awkward, embarassing. Those same qualities appear in the book, but they're more acceptable in print.

Or only that if they argued the point with you, they would lose?

Of course this is what "inarguably" means: disagreement is impossible. You will be assimilated.

Posted by: chris at March 2, 2004 12:25 PM

Andrew---

I see what you mean about political pressure from stylists, but she's still responsible for the way she looks. I mean, say you hired an interior decorator, and the results were ugly and unsatisfactory, but you said nothing. Wouldn't you still be responsible for the ugly design? It's your house, after all.

Posted by: chris at March 2, 2004 12:29 PM