AT Camera Lucida, Kidist Paulos Asrat writes about the Golden Globe Awards:
None of the films sounded attractive, imaginative, interesting, beautiful, thought provoking, educational, or any of the normal reasons one goes to the movies. Instead, they sounded like horror movies with grotesque story lines, or with over-the-top sexually active characters, or just plain boring. Also, it costs about $15 to watch a movie these days, which is about 2/3 the price of a dinner in a restaurant, which [is] preferable to sitting in a dark room being terrorized by a sadistic film director.
So, I was surprised when all (98%) of the women came to the Golden Globes dressed in classic – and I mean those classic Golden Ages of American Cinema – gowns. I shouldn’t be surprised, though, since this has become the standard actress persona: make ugly films, but dress up in beautiful gowns in public appearances.
—- Comments —
Perfesser Plum writes:
I submit that their clothes are as ugly as their movies. Most of those gals were outfitted at Mel and Ned’s House of Tacky. The rest wore drapes stolen from cheap motels. [Not that I spend a lot of time in cheap motels.]
With rare exceptions, youngish actresses are as interesting as an old boot and about half as smart. Listen to them yack for maybe 10 seconds and you wonder who lets them roam around without supervision.
Gowns should improve a woman’s looks. Of the three gowns depicted, only Anne Hathaway’s does that. And Ms. Hathaway did not forget her hair although Tina Fey did remarkably well in that category for her age. In any event, I gave up on those tacky award shows decades ago. The politics and awful attire are just too much to endure.
I agree Hollywood’s liberals are just huge hypocrites and phonies, but what else is new?