Well congratulations to Ms Winslet. (Link not safe for work unless you are a builder in the UK and then it is obligatory).
I haven’t seen “The Reader” but Kate has produced… ahem… a fine body of work.
And I rather fancy her. Now I know the dull harridans of the MSM have probs knocked themselves out on the subject of how Winslet’s Oscar is “a victory for ordinary women” and trotted out their usual diatribes against “stick thin supermodels” and “size zero” and all that malarkey.
But this is why I fancy Kate (can I call you Kate BTW?) She is a good actress – and being good at one does is always a turn-on. Yes, she is “bigger-boned” than some of her contemporaries but that’s not important. I can name other actresses who are the “stick insects” of Jane Moore’s ire who I think have “it” but it is not a specific body shape that confers “it”. “it” is much harder to define. Winslet might have a build closer to the mythical “real women” but that does not make her “ordinary” and the demented munterings of the hacks don’t make her so either. She is a star. She has stage presence and I have quite liked to be invited to climb into her hot-tub since I saw her in Heavenly Creatures. The film that made Peter Jackson and for something which features lezza schoolgirl porn really rather an intelligent movie. Winslet is brilliant in it. She is utterly St Trinian’s Head Girl.
OK. Then there was Titanic. One Titanic sank and the other one made a fortune and unfortunately that was the wrong way round. So my ardour for Kate also sank. I was three-timing Uma, Milla and Julie at the time. What won me back to Kate was her appearance in Extras with Ricky Gervais. She played herself and demonstrated the same “essential filthiness” she had done in Heavenly Creatures. Either Winslet is a supreme actress and utterly capable of completely playing something other than herself when playing herself or she’s the real deal and a girl who can tell a filthy joke and when she takes you to bed you know she’ll swallow rather than spit.
And it makes such a refreshing changer from all the boiler-plate “cause” obsessed lefty actresses who just exude a humourless, sexless, nothingness. They might make all the right noises about “sexual emancipation” but they just don’t get “dirtiness”*. Size doesn’t matter here. Personality does. And Kate has it.
OK. Madonna has a great body for her age. She does weird yoga and can put her legs behind her head. These things are sexy and the nude pics of her from c.1980 are very sexy but imagine having sex with Madonna? Your people would have to meet her people and contract it in triplicate. And just when you were getting into it and the material girl was putting her legs behind her head her Blackberry would go off because she had a 2-30 with her personal trainer…
Unless sex has a dirtiness, a naughtiness, a loucheness it is either the “lie back and think of England” breeding functionality which the Victorians are widely perceived to have exhibited or it’s the lefty idea which is equally sexless. Where the left went wrong was promoting an idea that sex ought to be “normalised”. Normalising it took away the thrill and made it, well, normal. Unless part of you thinks it’s just a little bit dirty then what is the fucking point? Taboos are fun to break but they have to remain so they are still fun to break. Otherwise where is the adventure and the glory?
I mean it’s the difference between reading a racy novel and reading a paper on the physiology of the clitoris. It’s the difference between making sweet sweet love to a beautiful woman on a Caribbean beach and writing a monograph on the biomechanics of the same.
Kate doesn’t seem po-faced. And that is why she is a star and that’s why I’m glad she now has a funny statuette on her mantelpiece.
Alas Kate has now vowed not to get her kit off in movies anymore. Oh, er… bugger.
*A male example should help here. Leonardo DiCaprio is a pretty boy but he doesn’t have the “it” of a George Clooney.