you guys, COLIN FIRTH HAS LOST WEIGHT!!!
we know this because our friend MAILONLINE REPORTER over at the daily mail told us this on 15 may in a characteristically calm report…
wherein MAILONLINE REPORTER looked deeeeeeeeeeeeeep into some photographs…
and drew some conclusions…
given the question of the headline was “has colin firth lost too much weight,” by this i suppose we are meant to conclude he has not. because his weight loss is presumed to be in the service of ART (as- sweeping generalization- a high percentage of celebrity men’s weight gain/loss is when it is portrayed in the media).
much like that one time matthew mcconaughey ate nothing but twigs and sticks so he could win an academy award, all the while dreaming of the perfect cheeseburger.
(a dream so vivid and one which my f0od-friend lindear and i discussed at such length that, writing about it now, i had perfect recall that this paragraph:
was from an interview in november 2012.)
so this story of the mail concern-trolling colin firth’s weight loss didn’t interest me at all until this morning. when the mail ran a second story on firth.
i would like to draw your attention, in particular, to the opening line…
hmmmmm… what headlines, pray tell?
can it be THESE headlines????
note how in the original article there was room for doubt. his fans “may be worrying.” the structure of the article, of course, implies we would do well to worry and then undercuts that by saying, of course, we needn’t worry because ART.
but look at how things have escalated in two days.
firth has “hit headlines.”
the daily mail characterizes it as a “controversy.”
given that the “full coverage” of a google news search yields five results, i’d say the “controversy” is minimal, at best.
though the mail rather implies WE ARE ALL IN UPROAR!! by virtue of its own reportage.
this reportage isn’t so different from the initial reportage.
again, the mail looks deeeeeeeeeep into some photographs…
again, surprise!, they draw the exact same conclusion…
this is, quite clearly, a story based on a story, which wasn’t much of a story in the first place.
there is a part of me that wonders if the mail has an article quota. and if, for every six articles on women’s bodies, they like to throw in a guy just to mix things up.
but there is a fundamental difference.
i’ll be honest. i wrote about these articles in the daily mail because they were something different. as opposed to the article with 21 photographs of my girl mariah carey in 4″ heels, which felt dishearteningly same old.
and which i did not want to write about.
and you can only bang on for so long before getting discouraged. and this article with the 21 pictures of mariah carey walking in 4″ heels is discouraging. because, AGAIN, you have a woman working and, yet, this is what we see:
a woman the mail is simultaneously mocking:
and using to bring in ad revenue:
(to be fair:
the mail has other articles on carey’s appearance at the up-fronts…
but one doesn’t exactly get the sense that work matters here. looking at this, it seems women only come in pieces, non? abs! legs! sensational figures!
i was struck, a few days ago, upon seeing a picture of hillary rodham clinton on instagram by the fact that, during this entire campaign season, i had not once thought of her as wearing high heels.
and that seemed like progress.
and it is perhaps for that reason that this image in this article kinda breaks my heart: