Wednesday, July 01, 2009
'Hermione,' say it ain't so!
Emma Watson -- yes, I think she is a doll -- goes berzack.
Ugh. Yuck. P.U.
I liked Avril Lavigne's dark-eyed "punk" look. But it ain't Emma's thing!
Also, I thought the pictures were classy, well done, and she looked good. Not vampy, campy, or slutty, but tasteful and sexy without being overly suggestive.
Like GKS said, just another role.
He also was never in the Navy, although his old photo portfolio from the 1940's has him in a sailor costume, a double for John Barrymore, although his thin frame and pencil-thin mustache made him a ringer, a bare-chested pirate, or a Babylonian soldier.
It is one thing to say, "You know, maybe that photo-shoot wasn't the best career move you've ever made." To frame it in terms of her most well-known role, however - and without keeping in mind Kirsten's extremely valid point that the make-up and costume were most likely dictated by the editors - is to confuse the fantasy (Hermione Granger is no more real than a unicorn) and the reality (Emma Watson is a young, attractive, and ambitious actress).
All I'm saying is the headline presented the body in a certain context. Your clarification of that context makes a certain sense; I'm simply saying that was not the way I interpreted it.
As fer this blog, I'd point to the disclaimer on the masthead: "Praecipitatum verius quam editum" -- from Erasmus, which basically means "thrown together, not edited." :-)