Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Oscars!

Dresses first, winners after.
Bullock: perfect
Best overall look: Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Lawrence, Hailey Steinfeld, and Reese Witherspoon. Dress, jewelry, makeup, hair, accessories: Brava! 
Witherspoon: Brava!  Berry: Tulle much?


Steinfeld: Age appropriate and excellent!
I loved Bullock's total look, which was so much better than her Golden Globes mess. Like Bullock, Reese Witherspoon went for simple elegance: a killer dress and gorgeous accessories. Witherspoon's black-and-white was so simple it made the perfect foil for those emerald earrings (I want!). The color isn't as brilliant here, but the style is visible, as is her pefect hair and makeup.


I loved that Hailey Steinfeld was so very age-appropriate, but in the prettiest possible way. And Jennifer Lawrence (my favorite actress of 2010) really wore that Calvin Klein sheath dress perfectly: only for a younger woman with excellent posture. The color and the style were perfect for her age, as well.

Great dresses with a ouch! factor: Gwyneth Paltrow (hair and handlers), Annette Benning (hair), Amy Archer (neckline and cap sleeves), Halle Berry (tulle froth), Jennifer Hudson (breast explosion)


Adams: Just the sleeves and neckline, ouch!
Lawrence, Hudson, Hathaway
What bothered me about Paltrow was that this dress on her was absolutely perfect: who can wear a silver sheath with that neckline? Prettier, I think, than the fabled pink Lauren gown (which was poorly fitted). But her hair! First off, color great, but her handlers and she kept fussing all night to make it lie perfectly flat. Visible fussing is like visible panty lines: disruptive.

That was also one of my problems with Hudson and Hathaway's dresses, see above. Initially nice to look at, but if you require 1-2 handlers to pooch or park the dress... uh-uh. Unless you want your grumpy minions in the pictures fussing and holding up your dress (like Hudson). The illusion is all, and seeing the stagehands ruins the illusion.

Hudson looks great and really found a color and a style that showcase her weight loss. The problem for me was that the inner curve of her breasts constantly stole the show from her total look. Their blatant featuring was completely distracting and in bad taste, in my opinion. Not saying you shouldn't rock a great figure and play up your best features, but the "here they are!" signal is tacky. Her eyebrows also looked overplucked... or something. Again, a small thing, but distracting to me.

Seen in the long version onstage, Adams' dress was gorgeous. The color--not balck or navy but a vibrant deep blue--was great on her skin tone. But I don't like the cap sleeves or neckline, and given the stunning diamond and emerald necklace, felt that the glittery gown was a distraction from a sincerely amazing piece of jewelery chosen to stun us. A matte fabric or a deeper neckline would have been better. Loved the back and the leg slit: ladylike but glamorous.

Halle Berry: someone finally wore the pale off-white/cream color perfectly. Finally! Gown is perfectly fitted, gorgeous fabric... and erupts into a flurry of tulle. Ugh. The tulle seemed an afterthought that, again, distracted from a nearly perfect dress and thus overall design. Like Bullock, she was soooooo much better than her Golden Globes disaster (OMG!). But not dead-on.
Shoulda stayed home: Melissa Leo (oh, dear!), Cate Blanchet (some green growth is eating my very square shoulders and giving me unibreast, Cap'n Kirk!), Anne Hathaway (too much going on behind), Nicole Kidman (what a very fancy apron, or shouldn't your wrap be around your shoulders?).
Oh, no

Huh?

Melissa Leo was just not right. Too many things: lace, gold metallic, slit, shoulders, whoa! The hair was too casual for this very fussy dress. I suspect that as a working actress rather than a celebrity, she didn't have the stylist or the experience to solve the total conundrum that is working the red carpet. It's not a sideline: it is an event in itself with its own culture.

Anne Hathaway: why have a big, loose bag on your butt? And... visible handlers. Ugh.

Cate Blanchett: ??? I know people will disagree with me because there is a Cate-cult out there, but this was a huge misstep. The shoudlers, the frothy stuff, the color, the portrait breasts... everything. her hair and makeup: dead on. The skirt of the dress: great. The bodice: sooo many things gone wrong.

Nicole Kidman: again, someone who can wear white without washing out, but... ???? I don't get the notion of this dress with its big wraparound satin thing. Un-clear. Cuts her in two, bulky, architecturally useless, and awkward. And red shoes? Not with white satin embroidered in gunmetal. What happened to the woman who rocked puce as a color?

I also want to speak up for Helena Bonham Carter, partly because I am envious of her gorgeous porcelain skin. Ok, she's a kook blah blah blah... who cares? She and Colleen Atwood designed her gown and it was unique and who cares? Shut up already about her personal style: we all get it. Kelly Osborn judging HBC on style? Please.

I heart HBC
She's a character. A unique woman who plays the fashion game in her own way. Get on her train or get off, but don't condescend or treat her like everyone else: you only make yourself look jerky.

As far as the awards: Annette Benning and Jennifer Lawrence were robbed for Best Actress (I am also officially over pregnant = "awwww!" = my business = award-worthy). Completely surprised THE SOCIAL NETWORK didn't win everything, not that I liked it or saw it, but everyone was so ga-ga over it at the Golden Globes. Glad for THE KING'S SPEECH, an old-fashioned kind of picture with old-fashioned kind of acting (the good kind!). Ridiculous Amy Adams didn't win Bes t Supporting Actress because she was sincerely brilliant in THE FIGHTER in the kind of specific, non-showy part that makes the picture and the other actors look good, while Leo was simply not.

My two cents.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for commenting! Come back and visit often.