Nicole Kidman as Marilyn Monroe?

I did a double take when I read an article which suggested that Nicole Kidman may star as Marilyn Monroe in the remake of “How to Marry a Millionaire.”

Who in the world would look at Nicole and think of Marilyn? Marilyn was voluptuous, an icon of the Fifties at a time when women were admired for being soft and curvy. Think of Jayne Mansfield, Diana Dors, Marilyn Maxwell and Brigitte Bardot who would all be described by Sam in “Silent Witness” as being “well-nourished.”

Nicole Kidman had to wear a ridiculous proboscis in her unconvincing portrayal of Virgina Woolf in “The Hours.” As Monroe she would have to get some breasts, hips and bottom and she would have to stand in one of those holes to look shorter. Kidman is tall and thin as a reed. She is a very “modern beauty”, less of a sex symbol than a clothes horse, with that lean and hungry look of Cassius which Shakespeare was not very partial to. Marilyn oozed sexuality. Let’s face it, if someone wants to give Nicole a good time, they would have to take her to an all you can eat buffet.

Unless the film makes use of special effects and don’t we need more of those in today’s movies, Nicole is not a perfect choice for the role of our most famous blonde bombshell. If the producers want to cast a more ample actress then perhaps the ever elastic Renee Zelweiger could be chosen, but then, what would they do about that screwed up face of hers?

As for the title for the remake, shouldn’t it be “How to Marry a Billionaire?” A millionaire is hardly worth the effort, nowadays.

Advertisements

Go ahead and jump!

There are some young idiots who have taken to jumping into a lake at a quarry site. They leap into water that is full of acid effluent and other noxious chemicals.

In order to reach the water they have to pass jagged rocks in the quarry on their way down into the muck. Sometimes they even ride their bicycles off the edge and over the cliff.

We know that they do this because they have videotaped themselves in the act.

A doctor from the emergency unit at the hospital has come out and said that this is very risky behaviour because these daredevils could get hurt or even, gasp, perish. Do we really need an expert for this sort of prophecy?

When I learn of such behaviour it really doesn’t shock me because I feel no sympathy for them at all if they do injure themselves. In fact, I regard them as a species from the lower end of the developmental chain, which makes me wonder about Darwin’s notion of the survival of the fittest. Or perhaps what they come from is even more moronic than they are.

The question is, for the sake of mankind’s future, do we actually want them to survive, or worse still, do we want to pay for their medical treatment should they get hurt?

If they do survive then won’t that lower the average I.Q of Australians in general? Do we really want them to pass on the stupid gene to their offsprings?—pun intended.

If they wanna jump they should jump, like lemmings into the muck. It’s no loss.

Attention all ex-cons!

Position Vacant</strong

A position as Director-General of Education in N.S.W (Australia) is being offered to any former convicted criminal who has served his time in prison.

He should be genuinely and truly sorry for his drug trafficking conviction.

The successful applicant will be described by some in the media as a fine example to our youth. You might have been a drug trafficker but that will actually be an advantage since young people will no longer have to fear that a criminal record will harm their professional career. So go for it young man, cause all will be forgiven.

As for experience in the educational field, well, it really doesn't matter if you have none at all as long as you have relatives in high places.

Farcical isn't it? But it has actually happened. Continue reading