I think I'm fairly observant of pop culture. I usually know the popular singers even if I don't listen to their music. I've heard about many shows and movies even though I don't have cable or satellite TV. I can figure out what styles of clothes are stylish from people-watching or window-shopping. Today, however, I read a newspaper article that made me feel completely clueless about current fashion.
The article (thankfully in the "Style" section, not in "News of the World") gave tips for spring looks. It began by positing that white will likely be the trendy color of spring. Fair enough, I can handle that simple tidbit. It seems like too normal of a color to be trendy, but maybe it's an anti-trend.
From her simple beginning, the writer then quickly progressed to a recommendation of espadrilles. I don't know what those are, but I bet I don't have any. It sounds like some unpleasant French food: would you like some espadrilles with your escargot? I Googled the word and it turns out to mean canvas sandally shoes with ribbons. Nope, don't have any of those. It will probably slip my mind to go out and buy some.
The fashion guru then suggested flowery dresses to evoke the feel of spring. I generally don't do flowery. Or dresses. I have one skirt that has small flowers on it, which I guess will have to do. I can wear it with a white shirt and go barefoot. I'll just pretend I left my espadrilles in my Hummer.
Her next tidbit for a fresh, spring look: "anything seersucker". This mysterious word sounds parasitic and uncomfortable and I'm guessing that I don't have any of that in my closet, either. Helpful Google tells me that it is a wrinkly fabric, usually striped. Can you get seersucker espadrilles, or would the two trends negate each other?
Finally, I am supposed to accessorize with a hobo bag (sounds expensive), a macrame belt (sounds summer camp-ish) and a hat (she probably doesn't mean baseball cap).
What must people be thinking of me when I'm out in public in my unwrinkled, solid clothing? My entire wardrobe is totally passe. I don't even have anything fit to wear to the mall to stock up on spring fashions. I'm so embarrassed.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Best Supporting Blog
Starting a blog was just the beginning. I am going mainstream. I actually watched the Academy Awards the other night (not to mention that I also tuned in to the Super Bowl this year). I found it a strange way to pass the time, but an interesting spectacle nonetheless.
I hadn't seen many of the nominated films, mostly because they didn't seem exciting enough to draw me and my wallet to the theater. I did go to see Munich, which I found interesting but unbearably violent, and Narnia, which I enjoyed immensely as a wonderful adaptation of the book. (It won for Best Make-up.) I recently saw Walk the Line and March of the Penguins on DVD. Walk the Line would have been better with less melodrama and more of Johnny Cash's real singing voice. March of the Penguins could have been much improved by some actual scientific narration (Morgan Freeman may have a nice story-telling voice, but let's get Marty Stouffer from "Our Wild America" out there to fill in all the actual details of wildlife in Antarctica. I've seen better "National Geographic" or "Nature" specials.)
Hearing that John Stewart would host this years awards attracted my attention. I knew he couldn't fail to be funny, but he could fail to get a laugh from an audience taking itself too seriously (millionaire movie stars). I thought he did pretty well, balancing political humor with gentle mocking of the whole Hollywood spectacle. He poked fun at himself enough to soothe the egos in the theater. Some of the funniest bits included fake lobbyist commercials for the various nominees as well as a montage of homosexual innuendo in old Westerns. I also enjoyed seeing Tom Hanks get clobbered with a violin and stung with a poisoned dart during a mock acceptance speech. Serves him right. Did you see his mullet (hair, not fish)? And he's the lead in the Da Vinci Code, a role that specifically calls for a handsome, intellectual adventurer along the lines of David Brancaccio of PBS's "Now". That book was totally ridiculous, but still, Tom Hanks?
I had expected the Oscars to attract more stars. The only actors in the audience seemed to be nominees or presenters. Where were the cool action stars like Jason Statham, the Rock and Mos Def? Where were the attractive leading men Colin Firth, Rupert Everett and Joseph Fiennes? I mean, there weren't even any Luke Perrys or Jason Priestleys around. They had to keep showing the same few people like boring Naomi Watts or lame Ben Stiller. Or Jack Nicholson. Poor Kiera Knightley--probably scarred for life by having to sit right next to that star of the creepy list for three straight hours.
George Clooney, Rachel Weisz and Reese Witherspoon gave poised, original acceptance speeches. They seemed like true, glamourous movie stars. Other winners with their lists of names to thank were less entertaining. I thought it amusing that everyone seemed to want to thank their moms this year. One time I watched an award show in which everyone thanked God, but He must not have had a hand in this year's movies.
I would like to thank all of those people who made this blog possible. A special thanks to all five of my known blog supporters: Marsha, Jen, Dee, Stig, and of course, Mom.
I hadn't seen many of the nominated films, mostly because they didn't seem exciting enough to draw me and my wallet to the theater. I did go to see Munich, which I found interesting but unbearably violent, and Narnia, which I enjoyed immensely as a wonderful adaptation of the book. (It won for Best Make-up.) I recently saw Walk the Line and March of the Penguins on DVD. Walk the Line would have been better with less melodrama and more of Johnny Cash's real singing voice. March of the Penguins could have been much improved by some actual scientific narration (Morgan Freeman may have a nice story-telling voice, but let's get Marty Stouffer from "Our Wild America" out there to fill in all the actual details of wildlife in Antarctica. I've seen better "National Geographic" or "Nature" specials.)
Hearing that John Stewart would host this years awards attracted my attention. I knew he couldn't fail to be funny, but he could fail to get a laugh from an audience taking itself too seriously (millionaire movie stars). I thought he did pretty well, balancing political humor with gentle mocking of the whole Hollywood spectacle. He poked fun at himself enough to soothe the egos in the theater. Some of the funniest bits included fake lobbyist commercials for the various nominees as well as a montage of homosexual innuendo in old Westerns. I also enjoyed seeing Tom Hanks get clobbered with a violin and stung with a poisoned dart during a mock acceptance speech. Serves him right. Did you see his mullet (hair, not fish)? And he's the lead in the Da Vinci Code, a role that specifically calls for a handsome, intellectual adventurer along the lines of David Brancaccio of PBS's "Now". That book was totally ridiculous, but still, Tom Hanks?
I had expected the Oscars to attract more stars. The only actors in the audience seemed to be nominees or presenters. Where were the cool action stars like Jason Statham, the Rock and Mos Def? Where were the attractive leading men Colin Firth, Rupert Everett and Joseph Fiennes? I mean, there weren't even any Luke Perrys or Jason Priestleys around. They had to keep showing the same few people like boring Naomi Watts or lame Ben Stiller. Or Jack Nicholson. Poor Kiera Knightley--probably scarred for life by having to sit right next to that star of the creepy list for three straight hours.
George Clooney, Rachel Weisz and Reese Witherspoon gave poised, original acceptance speeches. They seemed like true, glamourous movie stars. Other winners with their lists of names to thank were less entertaining. I thought it amusing that everyone seemed to want to thank their moms this year. One time I watched an award show in which everyone thanked God, but He must not have had a hand in this year's movies.
I would like to thank all of those people who made this blog possible. A special thanks to all five of my known blog supporters: Marsha, Jen, Dee, Stig, and of course, Mom.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
I Would Walk 500 Miles, But Not In Circles
My recent study of the sports page during the Olympics has brought to my attention large gaps in my sport knowledge. Although I think I understand the general rules of many games, I have become astounded by discovering the finer details of many sports. For example: Did you know that a baseball team has almost twenty different pitchers? That's twice as many pitchers as positions on the field, and these pitchers don't play any of the other positions. Many of them don't even take a turn at bat! I would find the game much more interesting if the players had to switch positions every inning to prove their worth.
One of the most astounding facts I discovered recently concerned race car driving or NASCAR, a competition which I truly don't understand. Driving cars round and round in a circle just doesn't seem like good entertainment or athleticism to me. Then I discovered, to my complete amazement, that the 500 in "Daytona 500" and "Indianapolis 500"--races that even I had heard of--meant 500 miles. MILES! These guys drive 500 miles and don't get anywhere! If I drove 500 miles, I would like to think I would be in a completely different state or country, having enjoyed some interesting scenery on the way. Although I've heard of people like Dale Earnhardt and Jeff Gordon, I had no idea that they drove such considerable distances. My brother always joked, "Turn left! Left again! Another left turn!" when the subject of NASCAR came up, but I thought these races were about speed and maneuvering for the lead. I had no idea that it was also about stamina for surviving a long, monotonous drive. I thought traveling the interstate was boring; these guys can't even read billboards to pass the time. Do they listen to music? I bet they can't snack on gummy bears and pretzels while driving so fast.
I read somewhere that NASCAR was the most popular sport in the country. I just don't get it.
One of the most astounding facts I discovered recently concerned race car driving or NASCAR, a competition which I truly don't understand. Driving cars round and round in a circle just doesn't seem like good entertainment or athleticism to me. Then I discovered, to my complete amazement, that the 500 in "Daytona 500" and "Indianapolis 500"--races that even I had heard of--meant 500 miles. MILES! These guys drive 500 miles and don't get anywhere! If I drove 500 miles, I would like to think I would be in a completely different state or country, having enjoyed some interesting scenery on the way. Although I've heard of people like Dale Earnhardt and Jeff Gordon, I had no idea that they drove such considerable distances. My brother always joked, "Turn left! Left again! Another left turn!" when the subject of NASCAR came up, but I thought these races were about speed and maneuvering for the lead. I had no idea that it was also about stamina for surviving a long, monotonous drive. I thought traveling the interstate was boring; these guys can't even read billboards to pass the time. Do they listen to music? I bet they can't snack on gummy bears and pretzels while driving so fast.
I read somewhere that NASCAR was the most popular sport in the country. I just don't get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
