First, the “speech” part.
Apparently some remarks by Meryl Streep about Donald Trump have caught fire on social media, and everyone is weighing in pro and con.
Well, maybe I should turn in my blogging badge, because I find I just don’t care. Meryl Streep, Little Bo Beep, or some other liberal or conservative actor or celebrity—why would I care?
More importantly, who does care? Well, it seems a lot of people, from the amount of chatter and jabber about it. Maybe it’s just a slow news day. Maybe since Trump is a celebrity, it matters what another celebrity says about him (at least, in the minds of celebrity-followers).
For many decades, Hollywood actors and actresses have been giving self-important speeches about Weighty Subjects. I suppose I do the same thing, and I’m not even a celebrity, but I didn’t interrupt an awards ceremony to do it. And I think my opinion should stand and fall on the worth of the arguments I present—good thing, because I have no built-in celebrity audience to draw on.
If you want to read a thousand and one opinions about Streep vs. Trump and Trump vs. Streep, with side trips about MMA, violence, and mocking the disabled, by all means go here and read to your heart’s content.
All I’ll say right now about it is that I agree with Donald Trump that Streep is on “overrated actress.” And that I think “overrated” is the perfect word, because she’s not a bad actress, she’s a pretty good actress.
Not that I think he should waste time dealing with her, or with any other celebrity who wants to diss him. But he’s not taking my advice, either.
Do I think Streep is overrated because I don’t agree with her politics? No. There are plenty of actors and actresses I disagree with but admire greatly, and vice versa. I have always tried to separate the two issues. Even back when I was a liberal Democrat I just didn’t get the hype about Streep, though. I could recognize that she could act—she could act up a storm. The problem was that it was only on the surface, although that surface went a lot deeper, and was a lot more polished, than most people’s surfaces. But nothing she did made me believe that her heart was involved—or rather, almost nothing. Every now and then I believed her, but mostly in her very early work.
That has zero to do with her remarks about Trump. But I thought I’d get it off my chest.
Now for the important part of the 2017 Golden Globes—the fashion. I was surprised, when I looked the dresses over (and let’s face it, fashion is about women’s fashion in this case), to discover that I liked the majority of them. Or at least, I didn’t dislike most of them. That’s a first.
The gowns seemed to be, for the most part, rather flattering and not too insanely revealing. Yes, there were exceptions. But I was pleasantly surprised.
However, I did notice a rather odd trend towards the Victorian or Edwardian costume type of dress. Also, for what I’d call the fallen sleeve (it may have a more technical name, but if so I’m not aware of it).
So, without further ado (by the way, I’ve never heard of most of these people)—
From Blake Lively, one of my favorite dresses of the evening. I’m extremely partial to pockets:
At first I thought this one, from Chrissy Teigen, was way too fussy and busy. But then I decided I rather like it. It reminds me of the dresses my cousin used to draw for our paper dolls, back in the late 50s. My cousin missed her calling when she didn’t go into the field of costume design:
Now, Meryl Streep (I had chosen this photo before I knew a thing about her speech, by the way). I’ve long noticed that Streep’s fashion sense leans a bit towards the dowdy. This gown seems to be caught in a timewarp involving the shoulder-padded 80s. Or maybe she’s actually trying for the shoulder-padded 30s/40s. I just don’t get it, though, and the color does nothing for her either:
Here’s another one that I originally thought was too over-the-top weird. But this woman (Olivia Culpo) pulls it off perfectly. There are only about three people in the world who could wear this successfully, and she happens to be one of them:
The rest of them demonstrate that period-piece costume-y fallen-shoulder look I already described. It was seen over and over—particularly among actresses past the full flush of youth, and it doesn’t suit them. It’s supposed to make the wearer look softly romantic, but after a certain age it has a tendency to make the wearer look both hard and a bit droopy/faded. However, this type of thing is a whole lot better than the see-through reveal-all dresses that have been in Hollywood vogue recently.
Nicole Kidman, dance hall hostess of the Wild West (but in a more spectral color):
Lily Collins is far more successful with this sort of thing, but still looks as though she stepped out of a costume drama:
And here’s one of the few dresses of the evening that seems to have no redeeming qualities, except that it’s not peek-a-boo. But on looking at all the photos, it occurs to me that some dresses just might not photograph well but might look good in person, maybe because of the texture of the fabric or the way it flows or the statuesque height of the wearer. This could be one of those dresses (Felicity Jones):