I was inspired by an online threaded conversation with a friend this morning to do a series on humility and confidence. It’s a hard balance for many.
Here is what she wrote. “Gah…why am I so jealous of those girls who can call themselves gorgeous (whether they are or aren’t) while walking into every room like they own it and everything and everyone in it (whether they actually do or don’t)?”
What are your thoughts in response?
Drawing by Marty Coleman, who has the same stuff in him.
Quote by Nicholai Velimirovic, 1881-1956, Serbian Orthodox bishop
I love a good script in a movie. I hate a bad script. Makes me crazy to have to listen to stilted or overly flowery speech that has nothing to do with who the actors in the movie are pretending to be. This year there were a number of great scripts up for Best Screenplay.
Best Adapted Screenplay
While we were watching ‘The Descendants’ I kept turning to my wife and saying ‘this script is REALLY good’ (in a whisper so as not to bother the other movie goers, don’t worry). I probably bothered her but I had to tell someone how great it was. It’s easily my choice for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Hugo is a close second but could reach the pitch perfect depiction of the characters that I saw in The Descendant’s script.
The Ides of March and Moneyball were ok, but didn’t stand out in my mind.
I didn’t see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Best Original Screenplay
Here’s something funny. A silent movie, ‘The Artist’, is up for best original screenplay. What’s up with that? The truth is, it had a great screenplay! As a matter of fact I am choosing it as my best. How can that be? Because a screenplay is not about how many words, it’s about how well suited the words are. It is also, in this case, about the body language, facial expressions and action.
Bridesmaid – uh…no. Sorry. Not anywhere near.
Margin Call – Good, had a lot of intense discussions in it, but also had a lot of mundane and forgettable parts.
Midnight in Paris – Actually not as good as I was hoping. Whiny Woody Allen replacement Owen Wilson made it hard to like the movie and his lines were all stock Woody Allen schtick. The famous characters from the past had too many cliche lines that turned them into caricatures of themselves.
It’s day #3 of Oscar Week and today we are paying attention to what Directors do.
Take a look at what’s in the frame. Would you be able to tell what is happening outside it if it wasn’t shown? Next time you are watching a movie, pay attention to not only what is in the frame but what is not. THAT is tells a lot about what the director is trying to tell you.
Now replace the word ‘cinema’ with another word. ‘Art’ is an obvious choice since it also often uses a frame. How about ‘Wisdom’? Maybe ‘Life’? I like that. Let’s use the word ‘Life’.
“Life is a matter of what’s in the frame and what is out.”
When I had my exhibition last month a lot of non-art people came to it. Many of them said it was their very first time ever to be in an art gallery of any kind. Art galleries and the art that is shown there, was out of their frame until that night. For some they will choose to not bring art galleries into the middle of their frame permanently, and that is cool. But some have had a new experience and will now seek out art galleries and will have the urge to explore them and the art inside. It will be in their frame from now on. In either case though they come away with knowledge and exposure, both of which leads them to greater understanding of what is out in the world, it expands their frame. I like that.
What is in your frame? What is not? Is that how you want it to be?
Drawing and commentary by Martin Coleman, who builds his own frames.
Quote by the film director, Martin Scorsese. I pick him to win Best Director for ‘Hugo’.
Seeing that the Academy Awards are this weekend, I thought we would take a look at some of the nominees. Yesterday I gave my thoughts on Best Picture. Today I am going to ruminate on the actors.
I have a lot of respect for actors and actresses because I think this is exactly what they do. And the good ones do it so well you don’t even realize it.
We haven’t been able to see all the movies with Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor/Actress nominees, but we have seen several.
Best Actress
Glenn Close – Hands down my favorite performance was Glenn Close in ‘Albert Nobbs’. I completely and utterly forgot it was her. It wasn’t just about her transforming into a man, though that helped, it was much more about her physical self. She transformed her face, her voice, her body, her posture, her eye movements even. I didn’t recognize the usual tell-taled gestures, head movements, voice methods that one usually sees in a star no matter the role. I didn’t see anyone but Albert Nobbs. It was an amazing performance.
Meryl Streep in ‘The Iron Lady’ was also magnificent but the movie was lousy. Thatcher was also played by a different actress, Alexandra Roach, to depict her younger years. I actually liked the Roach quite a bit, she was a revelation. Streep was best when she played Thatcher as a very old and forgetful woman, still talking to her deceased husband and thinking she was still Prime Minister.
Viola Davis in ‘The Help’ was good but didn’t have to transform and become a completely different persona as did Close and Streep. The performance doesn’t compare in my mind.
I did not see Rooney Mara in ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ and Michelle Williams in ‘My Week with Marilyn’
Best Actor
George Clooney plays a variation on Clooney in ‘The Descendants’. It’s a good performance, but not Oscar worthy.
Brad Pitt plays a variation on Pitt in ‘MoneyBall’. It’s a good performance, but not Oscar worthy.
Jean Dujardin is fantastic in ‘The Artist’. He has to do what the silent screen stars did, act only through face, body and gesture. And he does it amazingly. He’s my choice of the three.
I did not see Demian Bichir in ‘A Better Life’ or Gary Oldman in ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’. I am always intrigued when someone is nominated from a complete obscure movie like ‘A Better Life’. I suspect his performance is over the top amazing and I might very well think he deserves if I ever see the movie.
Best Supporting Actor
Jonah Hill – An ok performance in ‘MoneyBall’ but not worthy of an Oscar nod in any way.
Christopher Plummer – A recent widower who decides to come out as gay in ‘Beginners’. It’s a very nuanced performance and is filled with humor and wisdom. I wouldn’t put it as #1 but it is very good.
Max von Sydow – I am hoping von Sydow wins for his role as a mysterious man who can’t (or won’t) talk in ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’. He helps a young boy on his quest to find the lock that belongs to a key. He, like Jean Dujardin in the Best Actor category has to play it all with face, body and gestures, no talking at all. I think that is worth the Oscar.
I did not see Nick Nolte in ‘The Warrior’ (we have it from Netflix, will probably see it tonight) or Kenneth Branagh in ‘My Week with Marilyn’.
Best Supporting Actress
Berenice Bejo – A confession – I fell in love with her the second I saw her on the screen in ‘The Artist’. And I think she was chosen for the role because the producers knew that would happen, not just from me, but from most every person watching the movie. She illuminated and sparkled, she had pathos and doubt, she had enthusiasm and joy. It was a great performance it would be fine with me if she won.
Jessica Chastain – She was a fish-out-of-water homemaker in ‘The Help’. In turn confident, funny, pathetic, sexy, drunk, caring, and lost. She gave a great performance in her role and wouldn’t mind seeing her win as well.
Melissa McCarthy – Are ya kidding me? No, this was NOT a performance worthy of a oscar nomination just because she ran to a sink and sat in it to take a dump in ‘Bridesmaids’.
Octavia Spencer – In my mind she was nominated for one scene in ‘The Help’. It was a great scene, but I just didn’t think it was enough. Without it, the performance would not stand out and get the nomination.
Janet McTeer – As a macho, hard-ass house painter in ‘Albert Nobbs’ she appears to be the type of bullying, overbearing man that would take advantage of the housekeepers and other young women. In truth she exposes herself to be an extremely sensitive and caring soul. A great performance that also deserves the Oscar and I hope she gets it.
Drawing and commentary by Marty Coleman, who has yet to win an Oscar.
Quote by Rosalind Russell, who was nominated for Best Actress 4 times between 1943 and 1959. She never won.
The Academy Awards are this weekend so I thought I would do a series on The Oscars.
Linda and I do an OscarFest every year. We make a concerted effort to see all the Best Picture nominees. But we also work to see all the Best actor/actress categories, all the Best Director movies and, especially for me, all the Best Screenplay movies. We don’t always get to them all, but we try and it is a fun winter time activity for us to do as a couple.
This year we were able to see all 9 of the Best Picture nominations. We don’t always agree, but this year we pretty much had the same top 3. They are:
Hugo
The Descendants
Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close
Hugo is my personal choice because of the complexity of the story, the beautiful and innovative visual style, the acting and the script.
The Descendants definitely has my vote for Best Screenplay. The script was realistic and moving. I wouldn’t be upset at it winning best film but I liked Hugo better.
Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close was MUCH better than I was expecting. The story, script and visuals were compelling and moving. I loved it.
From there we parted ways a bit. Movies in the list I did not think were at the top were:
The Artist
The Tree of Life
Midnight in Paris
The Help
War Horse
Moneyball
The Artist was fantastic. But the storyline wasn’t all that original. It basically was a remake of ‘A Star is Born’. I love the movie however and I would not think it a gross injustice if it won. If you haven’t seen it, you should.
The Tree of Life was immense, poetic, visually staggering, symbolic and powerful. Shouldn’t that make my list as a result? Well, it almost did but really, the story is just not that compelling. A kid grows up in the 50s, loves life, hates life, is confused about life. Fast forward to his adulthood and he loves life, hates life, is confused about life. Intersperse with symbolic images of the cosmos and the confusion one sees there and we get a beautiful visual treat, but not nearly good enough to warrant Best Picture in my book.
Midnight in Paris only had one problem – Woody Allen played the main character (disguised as Owen Wilson). I have been a fan of Allen’s ever since Annie Hall, which is still on my top ten list of best movies of all time. But, I like his movies that do not have a Woody Allen character in them. This one had a whiny and stuttering Owen Wilson. He tried to crack jokes that were ‘Woody’ jokes. He tried to hem and haw and communicate terribly like ‘Woody’ would. I just cannot stand that character any longer.
The Help was good but it was so predictable and the visual style was so uninspiring that I just couldn’t see it winning on anything other than story line and that is never enough for me.
War Horse was way too schmaltzy and overly stylized to manipulate the emotions. I enjoyed it for the most part, but it was just too much.
Moneyball wasn’t nearly a dynamic enough story to make it to the top. The visuals were mundane and the acting just wasn’t that moving to me. And this is coming from a baseball fan!
What is your opinion of the Best Picture nominees?
I fell in love with Diebenkorn’s work very early on, when I was still an undergraduate. His work has kept with me and influenced me for many decades, for the color, the depth of layering (that you can only really see in its complexity when you see them in person, as is true of Pollack and Picasso as well). It also has stayed with me because it is warm and joyful and beautiful. His work makes my eyes happy.
Berkeley Series #39 – 1955
Diebenkorn is one of many California artists that share a love of color, often reflective of the california landscape. He first made his mark in the art world in the 1950s as a west coast practitioner of the reigning east coast ‘Abstract Expressionist’ school of painting. You can very easily see the influence of Willem de Kooning in color and brushstroke. You can see the hints of a landscape in the horizontal elements, something that will never leave his work for his entire career.
Woman on a Porch – 1959
Santa Cruz 1 – 1962
Interior with View of Buildings – 1962
Just about the time Abstract Expressionism really got big, Diebenkorn abandoned it and moved back into representational work. He still has the great color and brushwork, but he is now allowing recognition of landscape and figures to come through. This is the work that I saw first and it was a revelation to me because it was so profoundly, perfectly composed. It had such inherent beauty in the color and brushstrokes that you didn’t even need to see a landscape or figure in the work. the paint itself was enough. But add in the references to the world around him and I felt like I was experiencing what a visual poet would say.
Seated Nude – 1966
And, as is most often the case, the best painters turn out to be the best draftsmen too. Even though this is a recognizable and not all that unique pose of a female nude, it has Diebenkorn all over it. From the erased but still visible marks, to the filling up of the space with the figure it is obvious his concerns are the same as if he was doing a landscape painting. It’s about shape and form and beautifully precise composition. Take a look at the edges of the drawing. That is where you can really see the similarity to his paintings. There are always shapes and forms that combine straight and curved lines that hug the edge of the image. That is where a lot of the action is, and will continue to be in his work.
Ocean Park series #21
Ocean Park series #24 – 1968
Turns out Diebenkorn was quite contrarian. When the abstract movement faded and pop and other art movements became popular Diebenkorn abandoned his figurative and landscape imagery and once again returned to abstraction. He never left the hints and feeling of landscape behind but there were no longer direct references to it. This time, his foray into abstraction wasn’t reminiscent of anyone. It was all uniquely his. His Ocean Park series took up almost the entire rest of his life from the late 60s until his death in 1993.
I loved his representational work but when I saw his later abstract work I was even more moved. I fell in love with him as the ‘Matisse’ of my era, refining and reducing beauty to it’s essence and then pouring in a healthy dose of joy and happiness.
Ocean Park Series – Museum exhibition
And finally, an image that is one of my personal favorite of his. It’s my favorite because the paint is wonderful and the place is wonderful.
Cityscape – 1963
If you ever are wondering what a person mean when they say, “That artist has a very unique style, you can always tell it’s his or her work, no matter the subject or the medium.” Take a look at Diebenkorn’s work and you will know what they are talking about.
_________________________
You can see the rest of the ‘Artists I Love’ series from the drop down menu at the top of the page.
It’s Fashion Week in some little burg off on the East Coast so it’s Fashion Week in the center of the universe as well (that’s here in case you were wondering).
My eldest daughter, Rebekah, once asked me a question. She was standing at the top of the stairs and my other 2 daughters were at the bottom of the stairs near me in the living room. She asked, “Dad, is it ok if I get my belly button pierced?”
Hmmmm….this has got to be a trick question I think to myself. If I say yes, then obviously the other two girls hear it and will then feel they also have permission to have that done when they are Beka’s age. If I say no it sets up an argument about piercing and style that will likely go on for a long time in the household considering the 2 younger girls are only in middle school. Hmmm…how to respond?
First, I thought about what I had preached to so many of my conservative church-going friends who were parents. How often had I said, in response to them complaining about their kids’ styles, “Do NOT destroy the relationship with your child over style. They want to dye their hair purple? When are they EVER going to be able to do it if not in high school? They want to wear what most everyone is wearing? It does NOT mean they are a slut. It just means they want to be a member of a tribe. Chill out and save big battles for big issues, not shoe styles.”
Then I thought about what I had told my own children many times. I am fine with you wearing and accessorizing whatever you want. Any style is ok as long as it’s not permanent (i.e. tattoos, they can get those when they are over 18 and out of the house if they want), dangerous, harmful or hurtful to themselves or others, then I am fine with it. IF, however, I find that your character and behavior goes south I reserve the right to investigate whether your style has anything to with it. If it does, then that style will have to go or be modified.
So, now was the moment of truth. Was I going to practice what I preached with Rebekah? My response was, “Well, I think I would want to go to a doctor and ask what he or she thought of belly button piercings, I would research it, I would find out if there were big infection problems, etc. If that all came back ok, then I would let you get your belly button pierced.”
She listened, turned and walked towards her room and said, “That’s cool. I don’t really want to get it pierced, I just wanted to see what you would say.”
That cracked me up.
Drawing and commentary by Marty Coleman, who limits his piercing activity to using skewers for shish kebobs.
Quote by Peter McKay, who is either a Scottish Footballer, a Canadian politician or a humor writer. Pick one, you might be right.
It’s Fashion Week in New York and Fashion Week here as well!
What does this quote mean?
I understand most every quote I come across. I know what they mean to say and I understand why they are saying it. Not so with this quote. I saw it last week when I was planning out my style series and decided I would NOT do a napkin on it since I had no clue what Coco Chanel meant by it. I still don’t completely. But, here is a funny thing. Today I decided to just put the quote on the page, nothing else, then ask you what you thought it meant. I would then finish the drawing based on the feedback. But after I did the words on the page this idea of just a hand came to me, the ‘take to the hand’ hand. So I thought I would just draw the hand in the middle of the page, but that led to the face and I drew the arm funny so that led it to being a landscape then that led to deciding what she was refusing and that lead to me thinking…ah, maybe I do understand it after all…
But I am still not sure so I want your feedback.
What does this quote mean?
Does it reflect itself in your life, or in those you know and admire perhaps?
How does elegance (and its definition in the quote) fit in with fashion and style?
Drawing and commentary by Marty Coleman, who thinks fine dining is elegant.
In my non-Napkin Dad life I also consult, design and develop websites and blogs at times. I have recently been contracted to redesign and expand a style, fashion, and shopping blog and it has been great fun. It included a number of long conversations with the client about how to get just the right mix of elements into the website. That in turn got me thinking about what style really consists of and I came up with the Five I’s. I think I will spend some time digressing about the I’s eventually but before I do I would love to hear your understanding of the I’s as they apply in your own and other’s styles in fashion and other areas. Or add in new I’s or whatever other alphabet letter fits!
In addition, Let me know what you think style is, where it comes from, how you know it when you see it, and how it differs from fashion, trends, fads, etc.
Drawing, quote and commentary by Marty Coleman, who got 3 new hats this winter.
