January 9th, 2017

Golden Globes 2017: speeches and fashion

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.

Drew Barrymore:

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):

14 Responses to “Golden Globes 2017: speeches and fashion”

  1. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Not only do they need script writers to give them the words to say and directors to direct them in how to say other’s words but their choices in what to wear to a formal occasion demonstrate they still need adults to tell them what to wear. Pathetic.

  2. Big Maq Says:

    Maybe it is just my age, but the Oscars, Golden Globe, Grammy, etc., increasingly looks like nothing more than a hype machine for the least important people (who evidently over-rate their own importance).

    Didn’t watch the Globes, so didn’t know about streep’s comments. And… don’t care.

  3. Raincityjazz Says:

    You’re a celebrity to us, Neo, and we’ve always got time to hear what you have to say. Streep, not so much.

  4. T Says:

    I think the definitive take on Meryl Streep’s pronouncements was written by Piers Morgan. I’m no Morgan fan, but this is worth the read just for the command of the English language.


    “tinsel-encrusted pores”
    “Clearly their collective high moral values are a movable feast.”

    As The Professor says: “Read the whole thing.”


  5. T Says:

    Also, Paddy Chayefsky at the Oscars in 1977 (it’s been going on for a long time):

    “I would like to suggest to Miss Redgrave that her winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation and a simple ‘Thank you’ would have sufficed.”

    Just change the name and the award. Thank you Paddy for a universal statement that, sadly, goes unheeded by those that need it most.

  6. CV Says:

    Arrgh. I don’t know why it continues to surprise me when Trump takes the bait and bullies people back on Twitter, but I suppose we’ll have to get used to it (unless Melania or someone else is finally able to persuade him to set it aside for 4-8 years, starting Jan. 20. Not holding my breath.)

    That said, I agree with pretty much everything Mollie Hemingway says here about Meryl Streep’s soapbox at the Golden Globes:


    She mentioned that she agreed with Katherine Hepburn’s assessment of Streep, which made them both outliers. So of course I had to go look up what Hepburn said. Which was, she thought that Streep was too cerebral and overly reliant on technique:


    Finally, re: Kidman’s dress, which was not attractive and somewhat over the top. Kidman apparently commented that while trying on dresses her young daughters fell in love with it and urged her to wear it, because it looked like a “fairy dress.” So, to indulge them, she wore it, even though it was not her usual style. So if that story is true, she loses fashion points but picks up Mom points instead.

  7. Susanamantha Says:

    Glad to read that others aren’t terribly fond of Ms Streep. I never was enchanted with her acting chops.

    Put some shoulder pads on Meryl’s dress and Joan Crawford could have worn it.

  8. parker Says:

    IMO Streep often over acts, although I have enjoyed several of her roles. I ignore what actors, musicians, and artists in general have to say about nearly everything. Pompous idiots will be pompous.

  9. parker Says:

    Kidman has a soft spot in my heart, She reminds me of a younger Mrs parker minus the enhanced breasts.

  10. Cornhead Says:

    Meryl received the award for a lifetime body of work but she stooped to comment on a partisan issue. And what a pathetic and illogical speech to boot. She’s wealthy and out of touch with reality. It is easy to be a liberal if you are rich. I also note she wildly cheered for alleged child rapist Roman Polanski at an earlier awards show.

    Trump, in turn, responded with a tweet calling her over-rated. She’s a great actress but a hard core lib. He has got to stop punching down. Very, very disappointed in the both of them.

    It used to be the case where I never missed a Meryl movie. Now glad I didn’t see “Florence Foster Jenkins.”

  11. Mark30339 Says:

    What raincityjazz said at 3:33 . . . and

    I think The Donald, in his own rouge-ish way, is reminding us that actors disrespect their craft when they use it for divisive political lecturing. They should write an op-ed or hold a press conference – not abuse the good will of a diverse group gathered to honor their acting [not their politics].

  12. parker Says:

    “He has got to stop punching down”

    You ain’t seen nothing yet, Cornhead. Trump is Trump, even more thin skinned than the mannish boy. Short of amputating his thumbs or Ivanka stomping her high heels and screamng stop it daddy, djt will continue to engage in petty tweets. He is the scorpian riding the frog across the sewer otherwise known as the Potomac. The Donald got to be the donald.

    I saw that many moons and 1,000 miles away. But my vision may be sharper because I am closer to DC than you folks west of the Missouri. 😉

  13. J.J. Says:

    Pop culture is not my cuppa tea these days, but I appreciate the post and comments. Keeps me in the know.

    Streep, (My, what a name.) has undertaken such a wide range of roles it isn’t surprising that she isn’t always convincing – all technique, no heart, or something like that.

    I liked her as Karen Blixen in Out of Africa. But I loved that movie so much maybe I did not notice her acting as much as I might have in, say, Bridges of Madison County, in which I didn’t think she was that wonderful.

    It’s normal to be critical of Trump if you are a Hollyweird denizen, but to cast journalists, actors, and foreign residents as endangered species under this administration is way over the top. Such self delusion and posing as victims by some very powerful, well-paid, well-protected progressives seems to be the norm these days. And a big reason why Trump is President-elect.

  14. Lorenz Gude Says:

    Like others I have said I have always failed to warm to Streep, but thought it was just me. But what is being said here pretty well fits my experience. Nor did I have any sense of her politics so that isn’t it. I do have a sense of Gwyneth Paltrow’s politics and belief systems which I emphatically don’t share, but she just tickles me and I enjoy all the performances of hers I have seen. I also know a particular performance can change one’s impression of a particular performer. I never warmed to to Tom Cruise either until I saw him in A Few Good Men. His portrayal of the young jerk and then the young jerk growing up really got me. I still don’t like him but the right performance might convince me that Streep is better than I realized. Still I thank y’all and the President elect for making me aware I suffered from Streep indifference syndrome.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge