More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2013
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)
4 August
Ten headlines from aol.co.uk's home-page
Text : Sexism, pinkification and our daughters
Sub-text : Ostensibly, we're taking this seriously, but really...
Text : Revealed : World's silliest hotel request
Sub-text : (1) Yes, there is none sillier, and (2) We know this, because we're AOL®, Fount of All Wisdom !
Text : Elle Macpherson 'marries billionaire'
Sub-text : We've got you guessing with those idiot quotation-marks, haven't we... ?
Text : Cringiest ever celebrity music videos
Sub-text : A numbered list made intriguing by a grotesque contortion of the language
Text : Carla shows off incredible bikini body
Sub-text : My blog (link above) tells you all that you need to know...
Text : The people who affect house prices
Sub-text : We're not going to tell you any more than you already know**
Text : Baby Cambridge's top 10 play dates
Sub-text : Not that you have any idea who these people and their kids are, but You need to know !
Text : Annoying telephone customer services
Sub-text : We want you to interpret it as how to do a Henry Root on call-centres
Text : Revealed: World's silliest hotel request
Sub-text : I just put that in twice to see whether you were 'keeping up', but, whilst you're here : In my headline, quoted also from AOL®, Mary Beard is made to appear to be the subject, not the (indirect) object...
Text : PC maintenance could save you cash
Sub-text : It 'could', but will it ? Just AOL® promoting itself by trying to attack your pocket mentally ?
End-notes
* Not that there was anything wrong with synonyms such as received, got, had.
** In a numbered list, of course - with sarky comments.
If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here
Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)
Showing posts with label bikini body. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bikini body. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 August 2013
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
Video: Myleene Klass hits the beach in bikini (according to AOL®)
More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2012
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)
16 January
Almost as stupid as stating Customers shocked with horse meat ! Would we expect delighted with horse meat ?!
And, with this...
Which is worth the 1,000 words, since there is patently water (or might it be a swimming-pool), and patently bikini-wearing going on.
OK, we might not clock that it is MK, but what's this rubbish about hit[ting] the beach', and don't many women wear bikinis (one at a time) on the beach ?
QED
If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)
16 January
Almost as stupid as stating Customers shocked with horse meat ! Would we expect delighted with horse meat ?!
And, with this...
Which is worth the 1,000 words, since there is patently water (or might it be a swimming-pool), and patently bikini-wearing going on.
OK, we might not clock that it is MK, but what's this rubbish about hit[ting] the beach', and don't many women wear bikinis (one at a time) on the beach ?
QED
If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Video: Courteney Cox is bikini fabulous at 48 (according to AOL®)
More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2012
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)
20 November
Do we, at last, see some variation in this twaddle about '[insert woman's name]'s bikini body' ?
Not what (semi-mockingly, as I recall) Fowler - in Modern English Usage (or was it The King's English?) - called elegant variation (because we might have our own go at something that actually works now...), but variation nonetheless :
* Fabulous in bikini - Courteney Cox at 48
* 48 years of Courteney Cox, and still fabulous in a bikini
* That bikini looks fabulous worn by 48-year-old Courteney Cox
etc., etc.
PS Other than Kinnock stumbling at the seaside, or Daniel Craig on the beach when he first became Bond, what other men at the seashore have been given any significant report and images circulated and perpetuated...?
If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)
20 November
Do we, at last, see some variation in this twaddle about '[insert woman's name]'s bikini body' ?
Not what (semi-mockingly, as I recall) Fowler - in Modern English Usage (or was it The King's English?) - called elegant variation (because we might have our own go at something that actually works now...), but variation nonetheless :
* Fabulous in bikini - Courteney Cox at 48
* 48 years of Courteney Cox, and still fabulous in a bikini
* That bikini looks fabulous worn by 48-year-old Courteney Cox
etc., etc.
PS Other than Kinnock stumbling at the seaside, or Daniel Craig on the beach when he first became Bond, what other men at the seashore have been given any significant report and images circulated and perpetuated...?
If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
My naive little thoughts about the red-carpet treatment...
More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2012
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)
16 October
My recent Tweet to this effect, that, when you have bought furniture from MFI and the clothes-rail collapses, that is a wardrobe malfunction, shows how even the words that we use about film and its principals are dominated by the big business behind celebrity and cinema : after all, there is no such thing - to my knowledge - as a wardrobe function*, unless it is the costume department having an end-of-filming pre-bash !
So we have this nonsense about Angelina Jolie's bikini body, as if - in some proper wardrobe - her real body keeps Dorian Gray company, or a nip showing, or whether that look is hot or not. All of it just lazy shorthand, used not to be bothered to express something other than through what is tritely ill thought out.
And, back where we started, we pay the ticket-price to see, say, @HelenHunt, as made up in the appropriate chair for the role and the part of the film in which her character appears in the scene to be shot. A lot of time, money and expertise is spent - if people know what they are doing with the film, and her prize acting isn't edited away - to get her looking a certain way.
So why, without those lenses, make-up artistes, costumes, studio lighting - why, in hell, do we expect her to look like that, nice enough as she is, when she gets out of a car outside a big cinema? To use a stupid parallel, why watch Madonna, say, doing some car maintenance from the vantage of a nearby tree and without binoculars, when you could buy a ticket to see her act the part of, say, Lucrezia Borgia on the cinema screen? (Not that I know anything about any such film-project, you understand...?)
End-notes
* And perhaps it was only as a bit of light relief from that tired dysfunction, which every family knows about, that they chose the prefix mal-.
If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)
16 October
@bfi Odd that, when a film's cast is shot again and again until the expressions are perfect, we set any store by them appearing in the flesh
— THE AGENT APSLEY (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) October 16, 2012
My recent Tweet to this effect, that, when you have bought furniture from MFI and the clothes-rail collapses, that is a wardrobe malfunction, shows how even the words that we use about film and its principals are dominated by the big business behind celebrity and cinema : after all, there is no such thing - to my knowledge - as a wardrobe function*, unless it is the costume department having an end-of-filming pre-bash !
So we have this nonsense about Angelina Jolie's bikini body, as if - in some proper wardrobe - her real body keeps Dorian Gray company, or a nip showing, or whether that look is hot or not. All of it just lazy shorthand, used not to be bothered to express something other than through what is tritely ill thought out.
And, back where we started, we pay the ticket-price to see, say, @HelenHunt, as made up in the appropriate chair for the role and the part of the film in which her character appears in the scene to be shot. A lot of time, money and expertise is spent - if people know what they are doing with the film, and her prize acting isn't edited away - to get her looking a certain way.
So why, without those lenses, make-up artistes, costumes, studio lighting - why, in hell, do we expect her to look like that, nice enough as she is, when she gets out of a car outside a big cinema? To use a stupid parallel, why watch Madonna, say, doing some car maintenance from the vantage of a nearby tree and without binoculars, when you could buy a ticket to see her act the part of, say, Lucrezia Borgia on the cinema screen? (Not that I know anything about any such film-project, you understand...?)
End-notes
* And perhaps it was only as a bit of light relief from that tired dysfunction, which every family knows about, that they chose the prefix mal-.
If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)