On booting up my computer this morning, I was greeted once again by Jennifer Connelly in her shapely, red dress at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). It seems Sympatico.ca — Where Canadians start their day — believes Canadians are a lecherous lot getting their morning-motor-starter not from coffee but from the sight of Connelly's breasts and nipples visible through her her now infamous fashion faux pas.(The above picture, from Adorned, is not one of the pictures in question. The dress looks great here. I'm not posting the revealing pictures. If you must see those, use Google. Weirdo!)
What a bunch of kids! But kids who raise interesting questions about themselves and about the media in general. You see, I'm not sure if Jennifer Connelly meant to reveal so much. In a Canadian Press video, featuring reporters Catharine Benzie and Sunny Freeman, one of the two remarks, " . . . don't know if she (Connelly) expected the lights to do that to her . . . "
I agree. Oh, I think she meant to look sexy. The dress is clingy. But when seen in person, under lighting that is softer, less directional than the straight on strobe light under which she was photographed, the effect is totally different.
I have seen the Connelly-dress-effect before. Years ago, I shot a picture for The London Free Press of a young woman at pool side wearing a tight, body-hugging racing suit. When I saw the prints, I saw her naked. Nothing was left to the imagination. The strong, directional strobe light passed through the dark fabric, illuminated her light skin and any contrasting areas, and carried all that risque information back to my camera. I used Spot-tone to darken her swim suit for the paper and somehow those negs got lost (wink).
I did some searching and discovered that Linda Barnard, who reports for The Toronto Star but once worked for The London Free Press, saw Connelly in the flesh on the red carpet at TIFF.
This is Barnard's take on the infamous dress: ". . . as to Connelly's dress - it was not see-through at all - in fact the dress seemed to be made of a pretty heavy stretchy material and I was standing right beside her a few times. I think you're right though, it may have appeared so when hit by a powerful flash. It wasn't lined and she wasn't wearing a bra. But she struck me as a classy woman, very poised and extremely generous with her time for all of us. And, as we later learned, she was going through a rough time emotionally - it was the one-year anniversary of her father's death. So I say props to Jen for looking fantastic."
If you watch the CP video that I have included, you will hear at the opening, "I think it's about time that we get a little bit catty . . . " Look carefully at these two and then ask yourself who you would like to cut into fashionable ribbons — Jennifer Connelly or these two fashion losers. (Sorry, but I thought it was about time that I got a little bit catty.)
I don't imagine that it was a great trip to Toronto for Connelly. Canadians didn't show their best form. Harsh strobes weren't necessary to strip away the Canadian veneer of civility. A Canadian TV executive made Connelly cry with an immature outburst attacking Connelly for apparently not attending his party. What a boor!
The National Post reported, " . . . John Riley, Astral Media’s president of television networks, reacted to Connelly’s alleged no-show at his company’s opening night gala party the night before — due to travel delays, the report said — by ripping a photo of the actress in two . . . “This is my former favourite actress … I promised my kids we would shake hands.”
The day after the party Connelly responded, "My husband and I did go to your party last night but only very briefly and I had to leave early because yesterday was the first anniversary of my father’s death,” she said, struggling against tears. “And I’m very sorry. I would have loved to have stayed longer but was not able to. So please accept my apology.” "
Connelly apologized! What about the boor? Well, the best I could find was a report in the Toronto Sun in which Riley claimed his “remarks and actions were completely in jest . . . "
Connelly's dress was a definite fashion oops. Not a good choice for a night in front of the photographers' lights. But Connelly seems to have come through her visit to Toronto looking good, clothed in class.
Kudos to Jennifer Connelly.
Cheers,
Rockinon
Addendum: Since writing this, it has been brought to my attention by folks in attendance that the red dress was not see-through at all. This was not a shear fabric blasted into invisibility by strong light. This was an illusion, best seen in photos, caused by the strong shadows cast by the harsh lighting and enhanced by the spectral highlights from the flash photography on the fairly thick, but rather light-reflective, fabric. Whatever, not a good choice for the red carpet.
When I read the above I groaned, then I thought — this could be a blog — and finally I thought, "Whoa! There is a lot buried in those 20 words. If I'm not careful, those words could also bury me."
Paul McCartney caused a stir in 1972 with his song "Give Ireland Back to the Irish." The song was banned on the BBC. I'm old enough to recall all sorts of silly stuff being said about the Beatles when they were at their peak, but I don't think Paul McCartney was ever a communist — but that's just my opinion. Go google this and get back to me. I did, and failed to find a solid connection.
But, I don't think McCartney's politics are really relevant. You might say this talk of his being a pinko is a bit of a red herring. The statement we're really interested in is: "Capitalism is the best system." Is this true?
This is hard one, for someone who is not an economist, to answer. I'm going to answer but I'll come at the answer sideways. I want to slip out of this unscathed, I'm not looking to get deep into an economic or political argument, but it may be difficult.
You see, my first thought is that when I was young I would have agreed rather quickly with the statement. But with the passing of fifty some years I've changed and it is has not only me that has changed but capitalism. Capitalism today is not the capitalism of my childhood.
I believe the boosters of capitalism would say this is a strength of the capitalist system. It adapts to meet the demands of the day. This sounds good on the surface but what does it mean in reality? Are the changes that I have experienced through the past half century making capitalism better? If not, maybe the best system was some version of capitalism now adapted out of existence.
My grandfather was born on a farm in Princeton, Ontario. He was an outstanding student and I understand that at his graduation it was said he was the youngest pharmacist in the province of Ontario. It's hard to prove the truth of this statement as he graduated back in the early 1890s. Let's just agree that he was a very bright young man.
On graduation, he went to the States to work for Cunningham Drug Stores. This was an up and coming chain. My grandfather had a chance to get in on the ground floor, so to speak, but he declined.
He moved back to Canada, to Brantford, Ontario, where he started his own independent neighbourhood drugstore. He didn't get rich but he did have a beautiful wife and he raised a fine family. He never owned a car; he didn't need one as he walked to work. He lived in the type of walkable neighbourhood that is today thought so desirable.
Today, a young man graduating as a pharmacist would have a difficult time starting his own independent corner drugstore. The large chains pretty well control everything in the pharmacy business.
The Cunningham's Drug Store chain, the one my grandfather snubbed, went on to become one of the major players in the American Midwest but a few decades ago it was taken out by another player in the capitalist game. A lot of people lost their jobs.
When I was a boy, my neighbourhood had a least three independent drugstores. Each one employed people in the neighbourhood and provided an important service. There were no big parking lots at any of these stores as big parking lots weren't necessary. Most people walked to these drugstores — even the staff.
I worked for one of those drugstores; it became one of the first Big V pharmacies. Big V was formed by a small group of independent Windsor, Ontario, pharmacists intent on saving the neighbourhood drugstore. A few years ago Big V was bought by Shopper's Drug Mart. Today Shopper's is owned by Loblaws.
Capitalism, the best system? I'm not sure that my grandfather would recognize today's capitalism. And I honestly believe that he would tell you the system under which he started his business, a business that lasted him a lifetime, was better.