|
|
Post by Sunnyhorse on Oct 31, 2006 21:21:59 GMT -4
The award presentation is itself probably another fundraiser.
|
|
kafka
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 14:02:59 GMT -4
|
Post by kafka on Oct 31, 2006 21:28:03 GMT -4
Tons of stars from all aspects of the entertainment community gave to 9/11 funds and charities, just as many ordinary people did. The fact she gave money then and it was discussed doesn't make her a famewhore to me.
However, she also gave for the Tsunami and I don't recall reading PR releases about that. She helped out with Katrina, but she didn't make it a spotlight event like Sean Penn.
Glamour chose her; it's not as though Bullock submitted her own name for inclusion as "Woman of the Year." What was she supposed to do? Turn them down and refuse to attend? How would that have played out or appeared? I can tell you how: critics would have seized on it as an example of her being arrogantly haughty, superior and insufferable.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 14:02:59 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2006 21:56:27 GMT -4
There was a press release for Tsunami and nobody made it a spolight event like Penn. Even though Glamour chose her, she could've declined becuase she only wanted to give quitely. What am i trying to say is that it's not a shame to give whether it's quiet or loud by default but the fact that she's accepting an award for giving quietly is tongue in cheek.
|
|
kafka
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 14:02:59 GMT -4
|
Post by kafka on Oct 31, 2006 22:06:26 GMT -4
What am i trying to say is that it's not a shame to give whether it's quiet or loud by default but the fact that she's accepting an award for giving quietly is tongue in cheek. I definitely see the irony and where you're coming from. Believe me, I do. I merely think she can't be blamed for why Glamour chose her and for how a blog described the basis of the award. I also think it wouldn't have been so easy to decline acceptance. I think that would have made things much worse. She would have been labeled as sanctimoniously smug, or someone who thought she was above a mere awards ceremony by wanting to draw attention to how she was special and above it all. Like some sort of altruistic, misanthrope saint who was acting like a drama queen over a small award. How about we compromise and blame Glamour or the blog who wrote the "quiet" philanthrophy comment in the first place? AFter all, they're the ones who reallymissed the irony in all this.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 14:02:59 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2006 22:23:32 GMT -4
Fair enough and i really don't think anything is wrong with giving her an award for being generous just don't cover it up with "she gives quietly".
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 24, 2024 14:02:59 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2007 16:48:57 GMT -4
I don't know anything about this new movie of hers (Premonition), but I thought she looked stunning at the premiere. |
|
ownlife
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 14:02:59 GMT -4
|
Post by ownlife on Mar 24, 2007 17:01:30 GMT -4
She does look good and that is a hard color for most people to wear. I don't know how to describe the color--grey with beige and lavender, greigender?
|
|
viridian
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 14:02:59 GMT -4
|
Post by viridian on Mar 24, 2007 18:25:58 GMT -4
She looks beautiful, and I love the dress. She's still one of my biggest girl-crushes.
|
|
|
|
Post by kostgard on Mar 24, 2007 19:04:34 GMT -4
I think Sandra is aging really well. She's 42 right? She could have had some work done, but I think she's just aging well in general. She's got young hands (if you ignore the ouchie-looking bruise on her fingernail) and even when a woman has a young face, hands are usually the dead giveaway to her real age. |
|
ivy
Guest
Nov 24, 2024 14:02:59 GMT -4
|
Post by ivy on Mar 24, 2007 19:46:22 GMT -4
Not impressed with her look. It's too costumey. I think she is a pretty terrible dresser all around, actually.
|
|
