Archive for the ‘Angelina Jolie’ Category

Hot Pants?

Thanks again to treasures presented on The Guild of Scientific Troubadours, I have blog fodder.

Seems the boundaries of entertainment are on the verge of being pushed … and I’m liking it.

Check this out … a jacket that you’d don while movie watching that will let viewers “feel” the film.

The jacket, responding to signals encoded in the DVD or to a program designed to control the jacket on the fly, can do a host of things, such as “causing a shiver to go up the viewer’s spine and creating the feeling of tension in the limbs.” During the fight scene, says Lemmens, the jacket will even create a pulsing on the wearer’s chest to simulate the kung fu master’s elevated heartbeat.

Cool, heh?

But …

They’re falling a bit short by my measure. Why stop with a jacket? I’m thinking matching pants would be a very good idea.

Anyone want to sit through “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” with me … ?

Read Full Post »

I know I’m coasting here, posting vids instead of writing, but, believe me, my work sucks these days with all the crap swirling in my head … plus, I need all the music and laughs I can get out of every hour.

That being the case, I’m sticking a couple of YouTube contributions up here that had me wetting myself, and anything that can crack me up this much today deserves to be passed along. (Thanks, Jane)

Read Full Post »

It’s no surprise that the adoption world is easily offended when babies are used as props, since a good part of the debate that fumes mightily has everything to do with children posed as possessions to be wrangled over. But it could be argued that kids are not only “property” in the yours, mine and ours sense, but also in the theatrical sense, being that they can be quite handy for setting a scene or revealing character, and they look great posed between the dog and the tree on Christmas cards.

Who doesn’t attempt to position a child adorably for posterity, frame the results to gaze gleefully in perpetuity from the family room wall and send copies off to Granny, and maybe even to parenting magazines with the certainty that a wide audience is prepped to awwwwww? Being that there’s no shortage of kids being dragged from audition to audition in hopes of being the next Daniel Radcliffe, putting kids through their paces for the sake of “art” wouldn’t seem to be considered objectification of obscene dimensions. Would it?

Art being art, objectification and obscenity would both fall within the realm of beholders’ eyes, as what’s art to one is shit to another, and vice versa.

Take for example the paintings of Turner Award-winning artist Chris Ofili whose medium of choice is elephant dung.

How about the centerpiece of an exhibition in London correctly and descriptively titled: 21 Anthropometric Slabs Made Of Human Faeces By The People Of Sulabh International, India, or a shit retrospective in New York that featured “a dense concentration of scatological art dating from 1961 to the present,” some made from the real thing?

Now that we’ve established that art can be tasteless and still considered worthy of the title, and of people paying loads of money to bask in its glory, we can perhaps approach Vanessa Beecroft and the fuss being made over her, her breasts and Sudanese twins.

Ms. Beecroft is a star. An art star. She is not known for being nice or sensitive or caring or generous or … pick a pleasant adjective, any pleasant adjective you would attach to someone you’d like to spend time with. Vanessa Beecroft is not that person.

She is, in every sense of the word, a piece of art (see above). She is her own work, as her eating disorders attest, and with that always in mind, well into promoting Vanessa for Vanessa’s sake, even to the point of having a film made about having pictures taken of having the experience of having a conscience.

This debacle involves photographs of herself breast feeding twin Sudanese infants, a prompt that has immediately been sucked with relish into the black hole of celebrity adoption media spin:

At times Beecroft’s behavior is appalling, her motives and methods highly questionable, but it is difficult to turn away, and the more you watch, the more you wonder: What is best for these African children — to be adopted by a wealthy vain celebrity, an Angelina, a Madonna, a Vanessa (who admits she is a little crazy), or for the babies to live with their relatives in a hut, and take their chances with poverty and disease?

Yeah … like that’s what this is all about.

This is a woman who left her breastfeeding child at home in L.A. while she took off on a self-serving art quest to Africa, and if anyone is thinking the breastmilk-and-black-babies thing was a spur of the moment happening they are seriously missing something.

With a film budget and all to worry about, it makes sense that Vanessa would pull out all the stops on hype, and how better to get coverage outside the wacky art world than to slap the “celeb adoption” card on the table that issues press passes?

And, of course, it worked. Why wouldn’t it? There is no point, but why should there be? it’s art, and for art’s sake.

As Beecroft says:

“I really enjoyed this criticism. It is what I work for. I want people to exercise their thoughts, and I provoke with this image. Because the image was intentional also, not only a souvenir. But it had an intent to provoke. So I was happy with this reaction. That is part of my work. To create a little bit of irritation for the audience.”

The photographs are for sale for $50,000 each.

Here’s the link to her site where you can see the poster for the film … boobs, babies and all … an perhaps make an offer on a print … ?

Read Full Post »

There are topics arrayed before me like so many tubs of ice cream at a Ben & Jerry’s, some even looking as potentially tasty as Chunky Monkey, but I haven’t the energy to dip.

You see, I’ve already written almost 2000 bloggity blog words … 1,811 to be precise… on three blogs, and although I do this most days AND manage to plop something here since it’s NaBloPoMo, today it’s simply not in me to wax on again about the fact that today is Mark’s birthday or the very interesting “All Things Considered” piece on race in America or the new blather on Angelina Jolie’s adoption issues.

If you’re interested in what I’ve written, you can check out the News Blog, the Older Parent Blog, or the International Adoption Blog.

I’m going to go for a nice, long shower and get myself smelling sweet, brushed and tidy so I can welcome my Birthday Man home in an hour. Once clean and dressed, I’m going to sit down and read to my kids until Daddy’s truck pulls up and we all run to greet him with smiles on our faces and joy in our hearts.

Oh, one thing …

This morning, Mark asked Sam if he had any presents for him. Sam answered, “Of course I do, but you don’t get anything until tonight!”

Read Full Post »

Adoption is such a hot topic these days.

In the little time I had to peruse the Huff Post this morning I found three and half adoption related stories on the home page.

The half is one about Oprah. Since she wasn’t raised by her parents, she sort of qualifies for the orphan designation, and with the story being about her father spilling beans about a baby she had at 14, I’m calling this related. Apparently, he’s writing a ‘tell some’ book, although the hype is that he knows it ALL.

I sincerely doubt that.

Move up the page a fraction of an inch, and Angelina Jolie is announcing she’s taking a year off to spend time with Brad and the kids. Good for her. I suspect she’ll end up even busier than when she’s working, though, as she’s not exactly the sit-around-and-eat-bonbons-while-the-kids-watch-Baby Einstein type.

I think I’ll make a prediction here that within the next twelve months there will be reports of new efforts on her part toward some worthy attempts at change for the positive in the world.

Over to the left side of the page, Chris Kelly’s blog slams critic Michael Medved for slamming Katherine Heigl for slamming birthin’ babies as a pastime … this while coming off her latest film, “Knocked Up” … and suggesting adoption as a viable alternative.

Apparently the urine-tinged Medved … don’t ask me … has some investment in women bringing forth life from between heaving thighs, or something, and considers any other way of building a family as letting down the side.

Good to see he’s taking hits over that attitude.

And finally, there’s the story about the adoptive gay flamingo couple.

“Fernando and Carlos are a same sex couple who have been known to steal other flamingos’ eggs by chasing them off their nest because they wanted to rear them themselves,” said WWT spokeswoman Jane Waghorn.

Gay flamingos are not uncommon, she added.

“If there aren’t enough females or they don’t hit it off with them, they will pair off with other males,” she said.

Well … yeah. Isn’t that what they all do?

Read Full Post »