I saw in today's Age the headline: "Winslet panned for trivialising the Holocaust" and I thought, "Oh no, my equal with Natalie Portman number one hot actress chick has said something stupid... Noooooo!"
But when I went to the actual article to find out what my darling Kate said, I discovered that the headline had little to do with the news report.
What's actually happened is Kate Winslet appears in a film, along with probably hundreds of other actors, not to mention a support crew of hundreds, that one film critic suggests 'trivialises the holocaust'.
If you are to single out who is responsible for (allegedly) trivialising the holocaust, surely it would be the script-writer, or the producers who commissioned the script-writer, or maybe the director if s/he trivialises what would otherwise be a measured and earnest script. To create a headline inferring Kate Winslet is the perpetrator is clearly wrong.
And in any case, this is just one man's opinion. A film critic. Who of course is entitled to his opinion and may indeed be correct in asserting the film trivialises the holocaust.
Point is: Why didn't the headline reflect the story? It should have read, "Film Critic Suggests Movie Starring Kate Winslet Trivialises The Holocaust". I mean, I'd still read the article if that was the headline.
Lift your game, Fairfax.
In related news from the article, the film features Kate Winslet nude. Winslet. Nude. Oh I'll be seeing the movie and making my own boobs up on the assertion that the film boobs trivialises the boobs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
The headline in yesterday's Australian read
"Holocaust chic; Naked Winslet's historical travesty".
Add a "shock" in there and it's the perfect headline.
Or 'furore'.
*
Didn't Nazis have sex?
No, they were too busy stressing about kerning and typography:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDiDATbIG-o&eurl=http://ampersandduck.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded
Found at Ampersand Duck.
Perseus, you do know there are several other movies of Kate's where she nudes up? She's like the female Ewan McGregor.
We've already seen Kate Winslet's tits in Titanic, Hideous Kinky, Holy Smoke and Quills.
Be honest Pers, which article are you going to read;
"Critic slams Holocaust film" or
"Naked Winslet's historical travesty".
My point is the headline wasn't true.
They could still be shocking and correct... "Critic Slams Holocaust Film Starring Naked Winslet" is acceptable.
Headlines don't have to be true, Pers.
Its function is to get you to read the story.
I would have written "Critic slams Winslet Holocaust film".
If I remember correctly, Winslet stood naked and pissed in the dust in Holy Smoke. Critics and subbies would've been onto that one:
"Winslet Wees in Dust and Embarrasses Harvey Keitel."
Wait a minute! She also trivialised the holocaust in Extras! Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Nazi!
"Naked Nazi Winslet shock!"
Here's an intersting one from today's Age, not so much a misleading headline as a sensationalisation early on in the story.
The headline read:
"Frozen with fear: how Aussie survived Arctic crash."
Fair enough, he was 'frozen with fear' metaphorically and also really cold. Nice little play on words. Then in the 2nd paragraph we hear this:
"Before being rescued, the pair survived -20C temperatures, threat of attack by polar bears, feelings of despair as search planes flew past without seeing them, and the persistent fear the ice could give way beneath them."
Wow, pretty scary. Except there was no 'threat of attack by polar bears' as the survivor himself later declared:
"We saw a couple of seals in the morning ... apparently there are polar bears but thank God we didn't see them."
They didn't see them. So there were no bears. There was no 'threat of attack by polar bears' because there were no bears. Maybe there was a fear of a threat of attack by polar bears. Or an inkling that they should be fearful of a threat of attack by polar bears. But no actual imminent threat of attack.
Yes, using the journalist's logic, those two Arctic survivors were also under threat of attack by Serb militia, Martians, and Mel Gibson.
We've already seen Kate Winslet's tits in Titanic, Hideous Kinky, Holy Smoke and Quills.
Speak for yourself, Patchi. I have not seen any of those fillums. With good reason.
Winslet's IMDB profile says she "has very large feet and wears size 11 shoes".
Not sure how that's relevant, but does it put any of you Winslet lovers off?
It does, however, bring me to this attempt at a headline:
"Keitel fazed by Hideous Kinky Kate's big wet feat".
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to sample the buffet.
Mel Gibson. LOL.
Big Wet Feat. ROFL.
Titanic. ROFLMFAO.
Post a Comment