April 2011 Archives

Today's cuppa: Tetley British Blend tea

Recently, I had to do a lot of research for a syndicated feature story on TLC's coverage of the upcoming royal wedding of Britain's Prince William and Kate Middleton, scheduled for the morning of Friday, April 29.

I had done royal weddings before, having gotten up with the rest of the East Coast to watchDiana_and_Charles_wedding.jpg Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer tie the knot in July, 1981. (As I'm now on the West Coast, I'll let the DVR do the work for this one).

Also, I had to watch TLC's "Say Yes to the Dress" because of interviewing Randy Fenoli, a wedding-dress designer and consultant who works at Kleinfeld Bridal, the New York City bridal salon featured in the show.

The world of high-end bridal fashion is a new area for me, and I did find myself yelling at the television because mothers who really need to go on TLC's "What Not to Wear" or get some therapy were making life miserable for their poor daughters.

On the other hand, some of the brides, while not exactly "Bridezillas," were no tiptoe through the tulips either.

Then I trolled the Internet to look at the collections of the British bridal designers Fenoli mentioned, and was treated to an array of dresses that ranged from heartbreakingly gorgeous to, yeah, only if I was marrying the King of the Universe, and he paid me extra to wear that (and there were NO pictures).

So, here's a bit of my conversation with Fenoli about Diana's princess dress, the sleeve issue, and how he thinks all brides can be beautiful.

On Diana's dress (pictured above):


Yes, it was very poufy. It was very '80s; it was very over the top. That's what was happening right then. She was much younger than Kate is ... I find that more youthful girls go with poufier dresses, and the more mature the woman, they go for a little sleeker, more understated look, generally speaking. Princess Diana was so beautiful, but her dress overpowered her.

On why the dress looked like crumpled Kleenex when she came out of the carriage:

That's also because it was made of a silk taffeta, which does wrinkle fairly easily. Satin holds up a little better, silk satin. Lace, of course, is really great if you're worried about wrinkles.


On why so many bridal gowns are sleeveless or even strapless:


Let me tell you why. First of all, a wedding gown is one of the most fitted garments you'll ever wear. And when you have a fitted garment, and you have a fitted sleeve, it really restricts your movement. Girls today want to throw up their bouquets; they want to throw their arms up and dance at their wedding. They don't want to be restricted.

Randy_Fenoli_Say_Yes_to_the_Dress.JPGI have so many girls come in, and they say, "I want a sleeve," and then they try one on, and they realize that they're not really able to raise their arms much higher than their shoulders. Then they opt for a strapless dress.

When you look at a strapless dress, it's just such a clean, beautiful look. It shows off a woman's collarbone; it lengthens her neck; it really highlights her face and just opens her up visually.


On compromising by adding a shrug or a bolero jacket to a strapless dress:


For me, I absolutely would recommend a bolero or a shrug, because that's going to allow you the coverage, and it's going to allow you movement, just like a man's jacket gives him movement, because it's not attached all the way down. It's not so fitted at the waist that you can't raise your arms.

On why the bride and Fenoli often see two very different images in the mirror:


It's interesting how they see themselves, and how we see them as outsiders. Sometimes, it's very difficult for me, because no matter what I see on the outside, I have to step away sometimes, because how a woman sees herself in the mirror, I can't control that.

Almost every single human being has some kind of body-image issues that they're trying to overcome or deal with or manage. They may think their hips are wide, and I'm thinking, "OK, I see no hips." Or they think they have broad shoulders, and I'm like, "I don't know what they're talking about."

It's amazing, body dysmorphic disorder. It absolutely is widespread. The magazines today, all the models are super skinny, and they're airbrushed to be even skinner.


On what Fenoli plans to do about that in the bridal realm:


I just finished writing my book, entitled, "It's All About the Dress." It's published by Hachette, and it's going to be out on the bookstands on Nov. 1. I did not use any models in my book. I used only real brides, from size 2 to size 22, and ages in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. I wanted to show women that you can look like a model at any size, at any age.

Wait until this book comes out. It's going to change, I hope, people's perception of beauty, because there's beauty in every bride, and I show it. It's right there in front of you. I'm so excited. I just have the acknowledgement page to write, and we're basically done.


On why you will never know what a dress -- or most any piece of clothing -- will look like on you unless you put in on you:

You must try it on, because every single body is different, and every single dress is cut different. You never know until you try that dress on, what it's going to look like.

Today's Brew: 'Game of Thrones' -- Before & After, Part 2

| 5 Comments
Today's cuppa: hazelnut coffee

HotCuppaTV.gif

Yesterday I revealed that I have an issue with high fantasy, but proclaimed my intention, despite being all "meh" about it, to watch HBO's upcoming fantasy epic  "Game of Thrones," a series based on the works of novelist and screenwriter George R. R. Martin.

And then I said I would come back and tell you what I thought. Last night. Or first thing in the morning.

Right now, it is neither of those.

After watching four episodes last night, I wrote a Zap2it post, watched "Dancing With the Stars" (OMG, poor Maks! But Kirstie still rocked it out. Confused? Click here), checked my Google Reader, wrote some emails and then was just too sleepy to write.

Today, I'm on vacation, so I made breakfast, watched "RedEye w/Greg Gutfeld," checked my Google Reader again, wrote some more emails, ironed a shirt (you know things are bad when I start to iron) and was considering starting the laundry -- all in the interests of not writing this.

But, I promised, so here goes.

gameofthrones10.jpgThe good news: I didn't hate it. The production design is gorgeous; the horses are gorgeous; Sean Bean is awesome, and gorgeous. The dialogue is good; the acting is excellent (but then I'm a big Peter Dinklage fan in any setting -- he's in the picture below, at right); and it doesn't look cheesy (yeah, Starz' "Camelot," I'm looking at you, here).

The bad news: I just don't care.

I have written before about the importance of caring. It's usually the reason why I love something or don't. After four hours of "Game of Thrones," the only thing that got me emotionally involved that evening was seeing Kirstie and Maks' "DWTS" mishap.

Honestly, it just comes down to my problem with fantasy. To make me care, you have to give me stakes, context, parameters, something solid to hold onto, a reason to root for one side over the other.

In stories based in the real world, even if they're fictional, they're still constrained by the way the world works, and depending on your personal history and preferences, you can usually figure out who to root for (but the storyteller can mess with that, if he or she is really good).

If you introduce a supernatural element into that, part of the dramatic tension comes from the contrast between this occurrence and the ordered natural world that we all understand.

To me, the best stories that do that, like "Frankenstein," show that messing with Mothergameofthrones05.jpg Nature has tragic effects. You can supersede nature, but you'll still pay for your hubris. Or, in other stories, humans triumph over natural catastrophe, but that seldom comes free.

Even Spider-Man and Iron Man pay a steep price for their super-powers (and I love me some Spider-Man and Iron Man).

In the best science fiction -- from "Dune" to "Ringworld" to "Star Trek" -- the world created is still rooted in reality, even if it's an entirely created reality. It must have consistent rules; things must exist in context.

If a human character on an alien planet has a golden retriever, he brought it with him, and at some point in the past, both species originated on Earth. We're not expected to believe that other worlds also evolved human beings and golden retrievers.

(OK, TV science-fiction and movies have often strained this conceit to the limit, especially before the creation of computerized special effects. Sometimes budget constraints just called for a golden retriever, but maybe with wings attached, or a dude with antennae. Novelists have it easier this way.)

But in sword-and-sorcery high fantasy, all bets are off. The worlds often look medieval, but everything in medieval times -- from clothes to weaponry to armor to social mores -- existed for reasons specific to that period and its political structure and religious beliefs.

Reality is a seamless garment, with everything connected to everything else and obeying specific natural laws. That's why stories where reality is rent asunder are so compelling. We know the world should be one way, and suddenly it's not, and that's terrifying.

The animals in a world also exist in context of that world's ecology; they don't just spring up for no reason. Many fantasy worlds have horses and dogs, but also dragons and perhaps prehistoric elephants co-existing with modern animals (as seen in "The Lord of the Rings").

Thumbnail image for gameofthrones26.jpg"Game of Thrones" has dire wolves. Now, dire wolf sounds cool, which is maybe why the author used the term, but they're real, and they only existed in North and South America during the Pleistocene Epoch. Is this North America during the Pleistocene? If so, where are the giant sloths, mammoths and American lions?

Of course, it's not North America. It's not anywhere. The world of "Game of Thrones" is a free-floating patchwork quilt of customs and styles and animals and weaponry from a range of human history, tossed together with a vague sort of religion ("gods" are mentioned) and an ecology of winters and summers that vary wildly in length.

The erratic weather is a big plot point -- "Winter is coming" is constantly intoned --  but this planetary irregularity is not explained.

But this is fantasy, so you're not supposed to ask. You can have kings and queens and keeps and knights and horses and extinct dire wolves and winters that last ten years and whatever else there is, just because the author said so.

Even with all this, I can still enjoy a fanciful story if it feels emotionally true, if it follows classic themes of human storytelling -- like how the original "Star Wars" trilogy uses the timeless form of the Hero's Journey -- or is an allegory or a metaphor -- like how "The Chronicles of Narnia" is a Christian allegory, with a lion substituting for Christ (OK, I don't love "Narnia," but I got the allegory).

"Game of Thrones" reminds me of the second "Star Wars" trilogy, in which the Hero's Journey was set aside in favor of a complicated tale of political maneuvering and power plays.

I haven't figured out if "Thrones" has a larger theme -- such as Frank Herbert's fascination with ecology, which underpins the political machinations in the "Dune" books -- or if it's an allegory for something else. So far, it doesn't seem so. It just seems like characters moving in a landscape, maneuvering for power.

I'm just not sure if I care who wins or loses.

Now, I'm not saying fantasy is bad or people shouldn't enjoy "Game of Thrones" -- different strokes for different folks, and millions of ardent fans can't be wrong. Obviously this story touches them deeply in a way I just don't understand.

But for me, in terms of HBO,  "Boardwalk Empire" can't come back soon enough.

HCTV:
Because of a couple of truly filthy comments (we here at HCTV get stupid spam comments on occasion, but these weren't spam), comments are now closed on both "Game of Thrones" posts. And to those commenters who wondered why I pointed out that the series is well-made and credited those parts of it that are good, that's called being fair, which I try to be, even when something isn't my taste. Thanks for stopping by.

Today's Brew: 'Game of Thrones' -- Before & After, Part 1

Tonight's cuppa: peppermint tea

Thumbnail image for HotCuppaTV.gifI am no science-fiction or fantasy virgin. I've loved genre TV, books and movies since I was a kid, from "Star Wars" and "Star Trek," to "Battlestar Galactica" and "The X-Files," to "Alien" and "Outland," to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," the "Dragonriders of Pern" and "Stainless Steel Rat" series, to lots of stuff by Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, Ursula K. LeGuin, Larry Niven and Ray Bradbury.

gameofthrones57.jpgBut you may notice that there's not a lot of high fantasy on that list ("Pern" has its fantasy elements, but it does have a science-fiction underpinning). I couldn't get past "The Hobbit" to any of the other Tolkien novels (though I have watched the movies -- can't resist awesome spectacle, pretty Orlando Bloom and prettier horses).

Loved LeGuin, but never went near the "Earthsea" books, and scrolling down a list of the collected works of George R.R. Martin, I appear to have quite possibly not read any of them.

(May have read the novelette "Sandkings" in a science-fiction and fantasy college course; can't remember for sure.)

But, I have seen Martin's "Twilight Zone" episodes, and I was an ardent fan of his work on the TV series "Beauty & the Beast."

Why should this be? I enjoy mythology and hero tales of all sorts, from ancient Egypt to Holy Grail (with and without "Monty Python"), but you put me in pure fantasy setting and throw gameofthrones22.jpgPrincess Silvermoon, or the Dark Lord of Shadow Mountain, or the Misty Marshes of the Far Reaches ... blah blah blah ... at me, and I just start to giggle.

Make me stay there too long, and I'll start to slide over sideways with my tongue lolling out (actually did this in the movie theater during the endless endings of the last "Lord of the Rings" movie).

As for "Game of Thrones," the Martin series of novels which has been made into an HBO series and premieres on Sunday, April 17, I not only have never read it, I had never even heard of it before the HBO announcement.

I now have it in my hot little hands, and while unable to rustle up the slightest bit of interest (despite the presence of, as you can see from the photos, the lovely Sean Bean and a pretty horse), even after seeing the trailer, I will watch it.

Later on this evening (or first thing tomorrow, if I get too sleepy to write coherently), I will return to give you my impressions of however much of it I can get through before I need to start watching "Dancing With the Stars."

Until then ...

Categories