Cor, doing that was more fun than working ;)
The hair in the pigtails isn’t quite right - it’s Judy Garland’s hair recoloured so it’s a completely different texture and I couldn’t get the colour right - but aside from that, I’m pretty pleased with it.
I tried putting her tattoos on the arm as well but it didn’t really work out - a shame because she looks a little too pale skinned at the moment. :)
I feel like I’ve been neglecting the non-news bits of Fametastic lately because I’ve had sinusitis for just ages now and there is only so much work I can do before my head feels like it’s going to explode - writing up the day’s gossip has been interspersed with lots of hot drinks (for the steam), lying down and generally hoping that my ear drum won’t perforate from all the pressure build up. FUN.
Anyway, had a few random thoughts about things from recent days so I thought I’d write a quick blog about them.
Ok, admittedly I’m not a baby person - I never have been and don’t plan on giving birth to any myself - but even in the topsy-turvy world of Hollywood and celebrities, are the pictures of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s new twins worth $14million? I don’t think so.
From a “mini-them” point of view, I find it much more interesting to see pictures of their older daughter Shiloh - or Shiloh’s contemparies such as Violet Affleck - where you can see the parents’ features really beginning to shine through in an intriguing way — these pictures just don’t have that charm for me. Maybe it’s because I’m not a baby person so not used to looking at them that small but these babies just look like any random few week old babies to me.
What do you think about the pictures? Are you interested in seeing them? Should they have sold them or not? One of the arguments for selling them is that the paparazzi will be less frantic about trying to get that elusive first picture - do you think that’s the case or will the paparazzi still be after them for the first non-posed pictures?
Cor, my subconscious is a trouble-maker sometimes - I didn’t intend to put Pete Doherty’s “What Katie Did Next” video next to a story about Kate Moss, it just worked out that way without me (consciously) realising.
On the topic of Pete Doherty and my subconscious, I had another dream about him this week. We were walking around a market together, chatting about nothing in particular, but for some reason, he was about half the size he normally is. A little strange.
In every article about Ulrika Jonsson and the arrival of her fourth child, the Daily Mail has included a line like this:
“Miss Jonsson - who was labelled 4X4 by cruel detractors after the announcement of her fourth pregnancy - blah blah blah”
(From today’s article about the family)
As far as I’ve seen, they’re the ones that came up with that label and are certainly the only ones to repeat it in every single article. They’re also the only ones I’ve seen who refer to the fact Ulrika’s four children all have different fathers - in every, single, article. Most other sources seem more interested in the arrival of the new baby and the seemingly happy family he’s been born into.
As Ulrika has said herself, a man in the same situation doesn’t get the same treatment: Rod Stewart has seven children by five women but tends to be considered at worst a ‘womaniser’ (which typically has caddish overtones instead of slutty ones). In fact, an article from April this year was headlined: “Rod Stewart: Three wives, seven children and my beloved train set - why it’s such fun being me!” Rod gets to have fun while Ulrika is vilified.
They want to pass judgement about her but as a “respected newspaper” are supposed to be a bit more objective than that, so wrap it up in commentary written in the passive tense. They’re the “cruel detractors” as they are about every woman in the public eye. It’s just horrible.
The Anne Hathaway/Devil Wears Prada story from yesterday got me twitching to watch that film again so I did last night.
A few observations:
1) AH looks so much better with softer or neutral lipstick than the deep red she goes for so often in the film and real life. The red just looks too harsh against her pale skin and dark hair - like the colour scheme my brother had in his bedroom in the late 1980s.
2) AH is really good at looking duly smug - those impossible to resist sly smiles are spot on.
3) Some of the between-the-friends dialogue is really clumsy (eg, the “let’s introduce our jobs” conversation) but most of the time their interactions seem really natural. They all chat over each other at the end of the clumsy scene from lazy writing and it seems normal. And Tracie Thoms, who places her best friend Lilly, is spot on with her reaction to the re: the Marc Jacobs bag.
4) I really want to like AH in real life - because she seems normal and down to earth compared to many of her contemporaries (and actually acting for the acting, not the fame and fashion lines) - and find her pretty - because she’s not a standard clone - but I find the latter difficult sometimes. Sometimes she looks gorgeous but other times … decidedly not. I don’t know what this is but suspect unflattering photography angles and lighting are to blame at least some of the time. She doesn’t seem to suit a lot of the dresses she goes for either - both she and the dresses are perfectly nice in their own rights but don’t work together.
5) On that note, it may be because it’s a few years old now and also because high fashion isn’t always meant to be accessible but some of Andy’s outfits are … peculiar. And by peculiar, I mostly mean hideous. And Miranda’s carpet at home? Also bleugh.
6) Conversely, some of the time she looks utterly bitchin’ and a million miles tall. Is that worth going hungry - so hungry it makes you cry - for? No, definitely no.
