review in the times

no woody on scarlett action, fortunately. Opens today!

Well I think this is a splendid idea. Why not? Movie acting is easy and doesn’t take all that much time, so she’ll have plenty of time for it. So she needs SOMETHING to do to keep her occupied. Why Reebok though? who the hell wears Reebok?

I can’t wait to get my first pair of Air Johanssons.

link

Although the plot of the film for some reason does not center on her character, she is in the film, and so, it will probably be quite good. The story looks quite interesting, but I feel that if you want me to be interested in things other than Scarlett Johansson, you probably shouldn’t use her in your movie. Nevertheless, I am looking forward to this.

watch the trailer which has entirely too little Scarlett time in it.

David Hockney, author of Secret Knowledge, puts forth the argument that the great renaissance masters used a technique called camera obscura to project images onto their canvases so that they could trace them, and then paint over them.

I think this is probably right.

The more interesting question to me is, does it affect my perception of the painting? My answer is no. The painting is what it is. It is no different than it was when we thought it was painted by eye. It may be less amazing of an accomplishment, but there again I disagree. They invented a piece of technology that allowed them to make a better painting. The goal was a great painting, and there was no point in handicapping themselves. They achieved their goals, making their patrons happy. Their methods should not be questioned, nor their reputations besmurched.

Scarlett you are beautiful

scroll down to see all the thumbnails

CBT3 and I were discussing the mesmerizing beauty that some ladies of hollywood have (brought on by the idea that Selma is right now sitting somewhere in the world being hot), and one thing led to another, and now we have a new Mawopi Thesis:

All women in hollywood are either liz or sophia.

The question is, can we tell which way they will go?

Let’s assume Ceteris Paribus, i.e. access to the same doctors, swiss spas, botox needles and bo weevils, vitamins powders and indian gurus of great skin and influence. As such, comparing starlets to each other ultimately dwindles down to genes, lifestyle choices, and you know, a certain je ne sais quois.

Some will go the way of Liz, some will go the way of Sophia. Both were true classical beauties in their youth; Liz kinda went kookoo and now looks like toucan sam while Sophia makes me feel all funny inside. So the way I see it, if I’m going to invest a portion of my mind and heart to screen crushes, I have to figure out a solid way of knowing which way they’ll go. I want to grow old with a sophia, not a liz. Who’s with me?

here are my predictions:

Scarlet Johansen: Sophia. (Mawopi is praying for this one)
Selma Hayek: Sophia. (this is how the conversation started)
Paris Hilton: Liz. (her lazy eye is giving her an unfair advantage here)
Pamela Anderson: unfortunately, Liz. (And this one will be a fast downward spiral.)
Angelina Jolie: Liz. (this will be controversial- but it’s a hunch. I think she’s too crazy to go Sophia)
Monica Belluci: Sophia, clearly.

I’m taking sides kids. I suggest you all do too, to minimize your emotional losses. Let’s hear in the comments your predictions for other famous ladies of future septegenerian beauty.

links

Oscars 2006 image Gallery - so you can make up your minds

Toucan Sam, google image search

Botox at the oscars

definition of Ceteris Paribus

Je ne sais quois

bigger picture

Here she is, with two other people. Not sure who they are or why they’re screwing up the picture.

UPDATED:
image without text or the man