It was wonderful, wasn't it? And Scarlett Johansson is apparently taking the same foxy pills as Julia Stiles; they both get more and more adorable in every movie.
Lileks is not off-topic at all, because in fact, he is almost perfectly embodied by Bill Murray in Lost in Translation.
* Both are middle aged men.
* Both used to be funny.
* Now they are both very sad and alienated and confused.
* Both focus most of their attention on a much younger girl.
* (But not in a bad way!)
* Neither one understands the country he's living in.
* Both are shilling for a poison that feels good going down, but impairs judgement, distorts perception, and invites catastrophe when overused.
Of course, there's one big difference: Bill Murray in Lost in Translation is entertaining. For relaxing times, I'll make mine Suntory times--not reactionary jingoist fearmongering times, thanks.
Well now that this thread has degenerated (or evolved) into discussing the merits of hot, intelligent-seeming actresses, let me add Kate Beckinsale to that list. Sadly, we will not be seeing Julia Stiles in either a Whit Stillman movie or a vampire-vs.-werewolf-romeo-and-juliet-retelling-matirx-ripoff anytime soon...
I'll nominate Thora Birch for hot, intelligent-seeming actress (even though I couldn't really support the "intelligent-seeming" bit with reference to interviews or profiles, because I haven't read any--but then Johansson didn't come off too well in her NY Times profile). I thought she was much more attractive than Scarlett Johansson in Ghost World, though I have trouble finding people who agree with me.
The real question, here, I think, is how much better we can feel about ourselves (and how much more slack we should get from our better halves) for ogling the "seemingly intelligent," as opposed to, say, Britney. Can we quantify this in some way?
Further questions: Does prior indie movie status provide any defense -- thus, does Beckinsale's starring turn in the BBC "Emma" make my ogling of her in "Underworld" less culpable? How about an actress who, though perhaps dumb as rocks, has played a nuclear phlebotomist in some action thriller? Surely that should count for something!
I reject the premise, baa: I never feel bad about ogling. Of course, I like to think that I'm only tempted to ogle those who show some spark of mentation, but I'm not hung up about that either.
How about ogling more than one? Polygamous ogling? Hey, why can't we degenerate this conversation into something more patriarchal? Let's bring back harems. I've actually already made my list of who I'd want to include, but, ladies, it is an open list. Oh! to be the King of Siam! I love those harem outfits too. My girlfriend isn't so keen on the idea, but, what's one more or less, really, once i get twenty? I'm sure this is a good idea. As the Royal Crowns say, "everyone wants to be in a harem caravan." And best of all, we can drop the pondersome argument about the necessity of intelligence as a factor of attractiveness. I mean, once there's more than a dozen, who has time to find out or not? Also, I think we should be allowed to re-name girls who have bad names. Actresses and singers already do this. What if you find a great girl, but her name's Nelly? That won't work. So, polygamy and the power to re-name our women. I've found my poltical platform. I'd better start my career in Utah.
Michael, you are talking a different game entirely. I can't even keep up with one.
And, as a good Iranian boy, I could theoretically go back to Iran and hitch myself to more than one wife, but that is one thing I am very careful never to wish for.
In fact, I have an uncle who, for a time, had two wives (didn't go well; he'll rue it for the rest of his life) and an aunt who is one of two wives (went very well; the two wives and their children are, literally, one big happy family).
Yeah, I know I was switching topics, but, there were already quite a few girls mentioned, and I just thought, instead of this one or that one, why not all of them?
Sounds like I should start hangin with my Iranian homies. I do see your point with two wives however. I agree, it'd probably be worse than one. That's why you need more. At least 6, that'd be a minimum. With anything less, you'd have to pay too much attention to each individual one. I picture that if you get enough of them, you no longer have to be so interested in each one personally. I have in mind a type of The King and I thing going on.
Well yeah, at least 6, one for every day and then one day of rest!
Finally someone has come out about my secret fantasy. There are so many reasons why polygamy would be great. Just to be clear, I'm talking men and women, not the Mormon men and girls stuff.
It was wonderful, wasn't it? And Scarlett Johansson is apparently taking the same foxy pills as Julia Stiles; they both get more and more adorable in every movie.
Posted by Ted Barlow | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 8:41 AM
Unrelated to your comments, but I'll try one more time. http://www.lileks.com/bleats/index.html -- it's good!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 8:50 AM
Julia Stiles! Yes, hadn't thought of those two together, but you're right: hotties who think.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 9:07 AM
Lileks is not off-topic at all, because in fact, he is almost perfectly embodied by Bill Murray in Lost in Translation.
* Both are middle aged men.
* Both used to be funny.
* Now they are both very sad and alienated and confused.
* Both focus most of their attention on a much younger girl.
* (But not in a bad way!)
* Neither one understands the country he's living in.
* Both are shilling for a poison that feels good going down, but impairs judgement, distorts perception, and invites catastrophe when overused.
Of course, there's one big difference: Bill Murray in Lost in Translation is entertaining. For relaxing times, I'll make mine Suntory times--not reactionary jingoist fearmongering times, thanks.
Posted by jhp | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 9:09 AM
Awesome flick. S. Coppalla definitely smacked down her nepotism waving detractors.
For a what's wrong with modern life series: Death of a Salesman (Dustin Hoffman), American Beauty, and now this.
Posted by Balasubramani | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 10:24 AM
Well now that this thread has degenerated (or evolved) into discussing the merits of hot, intelligent-seeming actresses, let me add Kate Beckinsale to that list. Sadly, we will not be seeing Julia Stiles in either a Whit Stillman movie or a vampire-vs.-werewolf-romeo-and-juliet-retelling-matirx-ripoff anytime soon...
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 10:32 AM
I was already planning to see Lost In Translation, based upon the reviews. And Johannson was splendid in Ghost World, which I hope everyone has seen.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 2:06 PM
I'll nominate Thora Birch for hot, intelligent-seeming actress (even though I couldn't really support the "intelligent-seeming" bit with reference to interviews or profiles, because I haven't read any--but then Johansson didn't come off too well in her NY Times profile). I thought she was much more attractive than Scarlett Johansson in Ghost World, though I have trouble finding people who agree with me.
[ there's supposed to be a link to the profile in there, but it gets excised on preview. Here's the URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/movies/moviesspecial/07HEFF.html ]
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 4:38 PM
I thought she was much more attractive than Scarlett Johansson in Ghost World
That, my dear Ben, is why you go to the University of Chicago.
As for the interview with Johansson, what didn't you like about her?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 4:50 PM
The real question, here, I think, is how much better we can feel about ourselves (and how much more slack we should get from our better halves) for ogling the "seemingly intelligent," as opposed to, say, Britney. Can we quantify this in some way?
Further questions: Does prior indie movie status provide any defense -- thus, does Beckinsale's starring turn in the BBC "Emma" make my ogling of her in "Underworld" less culpable? How about an actress who, though perhaps dumb as rocks, has played a nuclear phlebotomist in some action thriller? Surely that should count for something!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 4:59 PM
I reject the premise, baa: I never feel bad about ogling. Of course, I like to think that I'm only tempted to ogle those who show some spark of mentation, but I'm not hung up about that either.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 5:04 PM
Oh, and baa, of course I agree completely with jhp about Lileks.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 5:13 PM
I'm with ogged. I have no reason to believe that (say) Liv Tyler is especially smart, but I'll be darned if that will get between me and a good ogle.
Posted by Ted Barlow | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 6:51 PM
How about ogling more than one? Polygamous ogling? Hey, why can't we degenerate this conversation into something more patriarchal? Let's bring back harems. I've actually already made my list of who I'd want to include, but, ladies, it is an open list. Oh! to be the King of Siam! I love those harem outfits too. My girlfriend isn't so keen on the idea, but, what's one more or less, really, once i get twenty? I'm sure this is a good idea. As the Royal Crowns say, "everyone wants to be in a harem caravan." And best of all, we can drop the pondersome argument about the necessity of intelligence as a factor of attractiveness. I mean, once there's more than a dozen, who has time to find out or not? Also, I think we should be allowed to re-name girls who have bad names. Actresses and singers already do this. What if you find a great girl, but her name's Nelly? That won't work. So, polygamy and the power to re-name our women. I've found my poltical platform. I'd better start my career in Utah.
Your hero,
Michael
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 7:20 PM
Michael, you are talking a different game entirely. I can't even keep up with one.
And, as a good Iranian boy, I could theoretically go back to Iran and hitch myself to more than one wife, but that is one thing I am very careful never to wish for.
In fact, I have an uncle who, for a time, had two wives (didn't go well; he'll rue it for the rest of his life) and an aunt who is one of two wives (went very well; the two wives and their children are, literally, one big happy family).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 8:06 PM
Yeah, I know I was switching topics, but, there were already quite a few girls mentioned, and I just thought, instead of this one or that one, why not all of them?
Sounds like I should start hangin with my Iranian homies. I do see your point with two wives however. I agree, it'd probably be worse than one. That's why you need more. At least 6, that'd be a minimum. With anything less, you'd have to pay too much attention to each individual one. I picture that if you get enough of them, you no longer have to be so interested in each one personally. I have in mind a type of The King and I thing going on.
Snoop Dogg's got my back on this,
Michael
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-22-03 10:53 PM
Well yeah, at least 6, one for every day and then one day of rest!
Finally someone has come out about my secret fantasy. There are so many reasons why polygamy would be great. Just to be clear, I'm talking men and women, not the Mormon men and girls stuff.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 09-23-03 1:10 PM
Oggling:
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/42e23aa3/122e885f
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-24-03 10:26 AM
That's great!
But I don't believe it for a second.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-24-03 10:30 AM
Maybe not, but it's worth a try.
(maybe even a pickup line. "Hey, you mind if I work out?")
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 09-24-03 11:05 AM