I ADORE watching the red carpet shows before the events. I have always been a fan of designers, and fashion. I even thought about being a dress designer when I was young, and used up many sketch pads just drawing dresses I considered beautiful. It was my way of living a real fantasy, even though I never thought I was physically up to the part.
What qualifies Joan and Melissa Rivers as fashionistas? Having money certainly can afford you the luxury of designer clothes, but having those clothes does not make you an expert. Who gave George Blackwell the podium to make the top 10 "Best Dressed List?"
There a lot of people who are heralded as designers that I, personally, question their talent. What I think is a beautiful dress someone else may not, and what looks fabulous on one person looks dull on another.
As a matter of fact, fashion is now, and has always been, a matter of personal taste. I agree that not all clothing looks good on everyone - no matter how skinny they are. I also wonder why someone would spend thousands of dollars on one dress and not do their hair, but that is a personal observation. Fashion is art, and art is always subject to opinion.
A recent Hollywood list came out that noted certain Hollywood "stars" as being over or under-rated. I don't agree with all those on the list, and wonder where they got their qualifications to state whether an actors talent was over-rated, or had potential. This list is subjective - and when people put articles like this out they ought to put it in the editorial section, and put their name on it, since it is not an exact science and subjective.
Robin Williams was on the list of over-rated actors, yet I find him to have a wide range of talent. His behavior is bizarre, but he has held down serious roles as well as comedic.
There are a lot of actors on the list I have never heard of, and many who could be listed, in my opinion, on both sides - but if the public likes them and I don't that doesn't mean they are not talented.
It has been observed that many actors do not receive an award for the work that is up for an award, but much of the work they had done previously should have been taken into consideration, so they are given an award this time. Example: Paul Newman won his Oscar for "The Color of Money," yet it was not his best work. Taking into account all the work he had done, this was not on the top ten list even. I have to say, however his performances have always been top notch - but you can't beat his work in "Cool Hand Luke," or "A Long, Hot Summer."
Russell Crow won his Oscar for "Gladiator," and it was an excellent movie, and his acting was superb, but he also was excellent in "A Beautiful Mind," and several others that have gone unnoticed.
If Hollywood has a problem with an actor's behavior off the screen they will be snubbed for awards for their work. Example: Robert Downey Jr. in "Chaplin." So, the awards are not based on performance as much as on sentiment.
If the decision were mine, I would not give an award to ONE person in one category, but to all those who put forth an exceptional performance that year. I've never been a fan of singling ONE person out for recognition when so many have contributed to the efforts. Make the list the top 10, and honor them for their outstanding work.
But then again, the 11th person would be snubbed, so I guess there is always someone who is left out.
Just my random thoughts! My next ranting will be about "Reality Shows." lol
No comments:
Post a Comment