People have made comparisons between the mysterious Laura and the ageing drag act Bernadette from Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. It's a nice comparison.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Sunday, 22 July 2012
Sunday, 8 July 2012
Monday, 2 July 2012
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Flicking idly through the pages of the August issue of ELLE, I came across the interview with the cover star, Mila Kunis. That one who lezzes off with Natalie Portman, voices Meg in Family Guy and manages to make even the quick-witted Justin Timberlake look slow-footed in Friends With Benefits. Oh yeah, and the one who is every man's fantasy. The Bambi eyes mixed with the minxy look behind the eyes, the cuteness mixed with the pure sex appeal.
Quite a terrifying premise, as the interviewer notes. An interviewer who is then relieved to find out that Mila Kunis is actually nice. In the same way that pretty much every aloof Hollywood starlet with a charmed life is quickly brought down to normal-girl level by being classed as 'nice'. The most non-committal adjective in the English language.
(Mila Kunis - sex kitten, movie star, nice girl)
There seems to be an unwritten rule amongst the mainstream monthlies that the cover girl must be a lovely individual as well as looking good in the latest Prada and having a film to promote (side note - ELLE is planning to open a letters page, to which I will be addressing something along the lines of 'why did you put a dude on your cover when the ethereal hotness that is Emma Stone has a movie out and looks good in everything?'), and that if you're on the cover of a weekly glossy rag, you have to be completely untouchable with a monstrous circle of sniping, story-selling 'friends'. Legalities aside, it would be kind of a little refreshing if both camps stopped trying to pretend that either of their cover selections are anything other than material. We don't need to know that Mila Kunis is nice. None of us are going to meet her any time soon, and we never actually doubted that she was actually a decent human being who happens to be rather talented, rich and sexy.
But at the same time, we just LOVE to hate on the successful, rich and beautiful ones of our friends while smiling when they pick up the bill.
So have the editors of the monthlies got it right, trying to elevate us a little from the screaming, sniping mag-hags that are fed by the Grazia ilk? Or are the smiling interviewers sprinkling the 'niceties' across their advertorials for the latest young starlet, sponsored by her movie and the Dior she's wearing, the ones most like us? Is it better to be an honest bitch or a very smart liar?
Personally, I'd like to see another Alexa-style piece of idiocy in the vein of 'blogs are ridiculous'. I want Mila to confess that she 'just doesn't like women, that they're all bitches that are jealous of her'. I want their next cover star (*wracking brains for who has a film coming out in the autumn*) to loudly slag off a few directors. I just want these people, who are paid so much money to say all the right things, to truly be allowed to appear human for once in their lives. Because all humans make mistakes, say the wrong thing, upset people. If the magazines really want us to love their stars, then they need to make them real.