Inglourious Basterds, like many of Tarantino's other films, is an elaborate revenge fantasy, which follows a group of Jewish-American soldiers as they seek out Nazis to murder and mutilate in German-occupied France. With the name lifted from an old, little known Italian film, and inspiration drawn from spaghetti westerns, Tarantino crafts Inglourious Basterds from an interesting hodgepodge of influences, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Brad Pitt plays the lead as a Tennessee-born hillbilly-turned-soldier who enjoys carving swastikas into every Nazi he encounters. While Pitt is ostensibly the star of the film, Austrian actor Christoph Waltz steals the show with his portrayal of a SS officer nicknamed the "Jew Hunter." Other big names include Dianne Kruger, Mike Myers, Rod Taylor, and Tarantino's personal friend and director of Hostel, Eli Roth. Clocking in at almost three hours, Inglourious Basterds outlives its welcome with most every critic, but some more so than others.

Let's start with the really bad before moving into "just OK" territory. The Guardian compares the film to "some colossal armour-plated turkey from hell":

Quentin Tarantino's cod-WW2 shlocker about a Jewish-American revenge squad intent on killing Nazis in German-occupied France is awful. It is achtung-achtung-ach-mein-Gott atrocious. It isn't funny; it isn't exciting; it isn't a realistic war movie, yet neither is it an entertaining genre spoof or a clever counterfactual wartime yarn. It isn't emotionally involving or deliciously ironic or a brilliant tissue of trash-pop references. Nothing like that. Brad Pitt gives the worst performance of his life, with a permanent smirk as if he's had the left side of his jaw injected with cement, and which he must uncomfortably maintain for long scenes on camera without dialogue.

And those all-important movie allusions are entirely without zing, being to stately stuff such as the wartime German UFA studio, GW Pabst etc, for which Tarantino has no feeling, displaying just a solemn Euro-cinephilia that his heart isn't in. The expression on my face in the auditorium as the lights finally went up was like that of the first-night's audience at Springtime for Hitler. Except that there is no one from Dusseldorf called Rolf to cheer us up.

Telegraph misses the blood-soaked finesse of Tarantino's earlier work:

The problem is that there's not enough roaring or headhunting. Tarantino, one of the most exceptional choreographers of blood-ballet working today, should have wielded a cleaver to whole sections of this 154-minute non-epic. There is far too much yakking, some of it thickly accented and hard to follow, most of it without the rhythmic zing of his best work. The violence – Brad Pitt as one of the Basterds wiggling his finger inside Diana Kruger's wounded leg – comes as a relief. A second plot, in which a Jewish woman whose family was butchered by Nazis organizes a film screening to assassinate Hitler and Goebbels – is more succinctly and powerfully handled.

Variety has a slightly more positive take, but still, not exactly glowing review:

While World War II has probably inspired as much fiction as any other single topic in film history, "Inglourious Basterds" is one of the few to have brazenly altered history to such an extent. Because he carefully sets up the approach at the outset, as well as through his sense of style, Tarantino gets away with it, and is in a position to fine-tune the picture before locking a final cut. Other scenes ripe for pruning are all those featuring Hitler prior to the grand finale, interludes that come off as cartoony, unconvincing and unnecessary.

In a true ensemble picture, Waltz stands head and shoulders above the rest with a lusty performance in the juiciest role. Laurent is appealingly thoughtful and observant as the young lady awaiting her chance, Fassbender cuts a dashing figure, speaks with a wonderfully clipped accent and rather resembles Daniel Day-Lewis here, and Kruger is far more engaging and animated than she's heretofore been in her big international pictures. Pitt clearly enjoys rolling his former moonshine runner's accent around in his mouth, although his performance is overly defined by constantly jutting jaw and furrowed brow. Inferring a measure of self-evaluation by Tarantino, some viewers will take exception to the film's final line, in which Aldo admires his climactic bit of brutal handiwork: "I think this just might be my masterpiece."

The Daily Beast criticizes Tarantino for being too "talky":

Inglourious Basterds fails to be a masterpiece because if you make an epic about a little topic like avenging the Jews, you need some emotion. You need a little bit of soul stuck in with the wit and the cool and the trademark film geek insider references. I don't mean you have to get verklempt. But you want someone to hate a little bit-and someone to root for. You felt something when Thurman, as the pregnant bride in Kill Bill, was shot on her wedding day and her child taken away from her. By the time she killed Bill, you wanted him dead as much as she did.

Masterpieces also need a protagonist to carry the story, or at least one who's visible. The star of this film is really Tarantino, telegraphing us in interviews prior to the film and while we watch it what a masterpiece it is while we search for someone to lead us onscreen. Pitt's energy and hilarious character helps. Waltz is a revelation. Kruger, playing a German actress and double agent named Bridget von Hammersmark gets to hold a cigarette like Marlene Dietrich and speak her native German. But there's no hero, or anti-hero, to give the film traction beyond its series of gorgeously shot, imaginatively written and acted scenes.

And finally, the most positive review, from the BBC, still isn't great:

In the words of Tarantino, it's "the power of cinema bringing down the Third Reich".

Once again, the US director has blurred film genres. Essentially it's western meets war movie, with David Bowie on the soundtrack.

And it becomes positively camp-operatic in parts - particularly in its portrayal of a shrill, semi-hysterical Adolf Hitler and British generals who could have been lifted from 'Allo, 'Allo.

Pitt may get top billing, but he's not the star of the show.

That honour goes to Christoph Waltz, a German TV star who plays SS officer Colonel Hans Landa.

Inglourious Basterds opens August 21st.

Subject: Questions, Answers

From: anna@jezebel.com

Date: May 15, 2009 7:05:46 AM EDT

To: [nameredacted]@observer.co.uk

Hi Amelia,

Here are some answers for you; I hope they help. I'm sorry that I was not able to get to all of them, but let me know if you need anything else. :)

Anna

Is there such a thing as a bad feminist? What is it?

No. I take the literal, dictionary definition of "feminism" seriously because it is powerfully simple for people to comprehend, and therefore embrace. Feminism is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. If someone believes in that idea and works - whether in large or small ways - to make it a reality in her life or others', she/he is a feminist, whether she/he knows it or not.

Why is Jezebel so popular among young women? What sort of feminism is it giving them that they are, perhaps, not finding elsewhere?

I don't know the answer to this question. I don't even know if I would say that "Jezebel is popular among young women." Jezebel is a successful site, to be sure, but we could be much bigger - I HOPE that we get much bigger. But "popular" isn't something I'm comfortable using as a descriptor just yet; we're just shy of 2 years old. And I'm not so sure we are dominated by "young women" (if by that you mean women under 35): we have readers ranging from their late teens to their 50s, and probably (hopefully!) even beyond that.

Answering the second part of your question requires that I explain a little bit of what I wanted Jezebel to be when it first began. When I began creating the site, I wanted it to be a site for women that did not shy away from the serious or the superficial - the dramatic or the comedic. At the time, the strongest, most popular women's media properties online seemed to fall into two categories: consumptive (shopping, fashion, gossip, etc.) or active (politics, gender studies, etc.). What I did not see was a melding of the two; an acknowledgement that there is a large audience of women who women want to talk about ALL of the aforementioned things - often at the same time. So perhaps Jezebel is filling that niche. PERHAPS. As for what "sort" of feminism the site is giving readers, there is no way to answer this because the site's editors/writers - just like its readers - have differing opinions on any and every subject. In fact, I am less interested in chronicling or adhering to a TYPE of feminism than I am in simply making feminism a topic of discussion. The concept of feminism - and literally, the word itself - was something I grew up embracing unquestioningly in the 1970s; it was a no-brainer, so to speak. By the mid to late 80s, however, "feminism" was a word on par with the word "liberal,", i.e., a "dirty" word: Young women I went to high school and college with shied away from describing themselves as feminists. This was something that bothered me (and obviously, others) for years; I wondered if helped create an online property that discussed feminism without being wholly ABOUT feminism - that is, if the concept, discussion, and subtleties of feminism were treated with the same familiarity and ease that young women talk about OTHER subjects, that it might become not only palatable, but embraced by women who had grown up believing that it was something apart from them. Short version: I was not interested in preaching to the choir; that is being done quite movingly and intelligently by other media properties that have been around MUCH longer than we have.

Megan from Jezebel said: "I have seen misogyny and, most of the time, it looks a lot like the ideology Hirshman has the audacity to call "feminism"." Does she mean 20th-century feminism was misogynist? If so, I'd love lots of detail on this opinion!!


I can't speak for Megan on this, except to say that I'm very confident she was not calling 20th century feminism "misogynist".

What are the most important ways in which today's feminism differs from ‘2nd wave' feminism?

Again, I don't believe in assigning categories. I realize that the concepts of "2nd wave" vs. "3rd wave" and even "4th wave" are attempts to bring order to a complex, ongoing social movement - and I understand the need for order - but I reject those categories only in that I reject most attempts at categorization. That is just the way I am. (This may or may not have something to do with the fact that I am biracial and therefore learned to become comfortable with shades and grey. Or in my case, shades of tan.) Suffice it to say that I'm not sure that it's the FEMINISM that has changed, but the people/actors within the movement.

How would you describe the "state of feminism" today? Is there a general political and social standard that defines basic feminist behaviour - and if so, what is it NOT and what is it?

Yes there is a standard: Working to increase the position of women in society and attempting to remain open-minded as to the realities and subtleties of the women around you as you do so.

Are these disagreements between young women about what feminism means in modern-day society healthy or concerning? If they're concerning, please elaborate.

They're not concerning at all. I think they are exciting, vital, compelling and necessary. The only thing that really concerns me is the nasty way in which some decide to present those disagreements. Ad hominem attacks are never attractive, nor particularly productive, and they obscure the larger issues that everyone is trying to address and to change. The other concern: That the SPECIFICS of the disagreements over feminism will be overlooked by outsiders (or insiders!) who are more interested in the "dramas" behind the disagreement. This is why I hate hearing about sensationalist shit like "blog wars" and the like. Usually, it's best to just not engage in that stuff and focus on the merits, not the melodrama.

What do you think are the most troubling problems with feminism today?

The biggest problems with feminism today are: 1) That not enough women choose to call themselves feminists. 2) That some claim to be able to "define" what feminism is on a granular level, or to assert that there is a set of "rules" to feminism. I do not trust nor respect those who claim they have all the answers. They are more interested in comfort than challenge. Feminism is not static.

What about Linda's question about "what does it show that these women who are supposedly acting freely and powerfully, keep turning up tales of vulnerability-repulsive sexual partners, pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, even rape?"

Honestly, that was one of the most absurd and incoherent of Linda Hirshman's insinuations because not all women - feminist or not - act completely "freely and powerfully"... but a hell of a lot of them TRY. And they often fall short, ESPECIALLY when they are young. In fact, if the true measure of a feminis is that she has never found herself faced with repulsive sexual partners (whatever that means), STDs, unwanted pregnancies or sexual assaults, then the population of women who consider themselves feminist has just shrunk considerably. And this word "vulnerable"? It feels condescending in this context. For example, I wasn't "vulnerable" when I got pregnant twice in my 20s as the result of bad decisions: I was PREGNANT.

• • • • •

My followup email after the piece ran:

Subject: Your Guardian piece

From: anna@jezebel.com

Date: May 17, 2009 11:10:16 AM EDT

To: [name redacted]@observer.co.uk

Cc: [name redacted]@observer.co.uk, Megan Carpentier

Dear Ms. Hill,

I read with interest your piece on Jezebel/Double X last night. Despite what [you] claimed [your] story was going to be via email - about modern feminism in general - it seemed to be much more about Jezebel than Double X, and, just like Ms. Hirshman's absurd ad hominem article itself, it provided more of a rehash of something that happened almost a year ago than anything particularly fresh, knowledegable or, frankly, even honest.

About that last point:

To describe the site as divided between "raising funds for victims of honor killings' and 'writing salaciously and candidly about [our] choice to live lives of unashamed promiscuity" is at best, ignorant and at worst, nasty. Have you ever read the site? I challenge you to find one post in the past half year that falls into either the former or latter category. In fact, the only people who have written about lives of "unashamed promiscuity" - a very interesting, telling choice of words there on your part - who are still writing for the site make up ONE THIRD of the entire staff. And then do so very infrequently.

Your piece is further weakened when you get things like this wrong: "...referring to an hour-long television appearance by Tracie Egan, a Jezebel blogger who goes by the moniker "Slut Machine", and Maureen "Moe" Tkacik, in which the two young women refused to engage with a serious discussion about sexual politics and culture."

You're kidding, right? The appearance made by Tracie and Moe last JULY was not on television; it was in a small downtown Manhattan theater, and it was videotaped. Television wasn't involved, unless "internet video" is the new word for "the transmission and broadcasting of a moving image via a picture tube." Furthermore, Tracie has not gone by the moniker "Slut Machine" since last September and Moe has not worked for the site since a month before THAT; again, if you had any familiarity with the site - or had made any effort to acquire some during the course of writing your article - you would have not only known that but contacted me for this article DIRECTLY, instead of going to both my deputy (Dodai Stewart) and one of my editors (Tracie Egan). My name is located - clearly and with an accompanying email link - on the site's masthead for all to see.

I'm also curious as to why you chose NOT to name our writer Megan Carpentier, when discussing her reasonable, impassioned, personal response to Ms. Hirshman's Double X article; instead both her and her post are reduced to the following descriptions: the "Jezebel website" and "the article stated", when, in fact the post's author has a name and an identity separate from the rest of the staff. This is a group weblog, not a monarchy.

Lastly, I was disappointed to see that you chose to leave out any of the quotes I provided to you in my email interview. I understand that things get cut for reasons of space and focus, but to write and "report" such an unbalanced article - nearly two thirds of your piece was essentially spent attacking Jezebel via a rehashing of old stories and new quotes, and I can't say the other third was particularly powerful in "defending" it - without actually using any of my responses is strange. Thing is, I'd be more offended if I thought - based on the glaring, embarrassing errors above - you knew what you were talking about. Suffice it to say, we won't be participating in any more stories with the Guardian.

With ALL the best wishes, Amelia,

Anna Holmes

Managing Editor, Jezebel.com

While this piece raises an interesting question - why do we even need kid-friendly words for "vagina?" What's wrong with just calling it what it is? - the best thing about the piece is all the hilarious suggestions from readers.

There are the twee and cutesy ones, including twinkie, fairy, tweenies (actually kind of clever, since it's from "between the legs"), bunsie, minky, mimi, pom-pom, schmooey, and my personal favorite, flossy (Urban Dictionary definition: "Superficially stylish; Showy; Attracts attention with looks or nice things; similar to "bling"; someone or something that is considered cool, stylish, hot, expensive or attractive"). Some parents suggest calling it by a girl's name - like Priscilla or Doris - which is sure to cause confusion if their child ever actually meets a Priscilla or a Doris. There are also some really wonderful stories.

"Anne" has a great family name for her ladybits: "My mother and her mother, etc, referred to it as a 'ha'penny' - and generally only in the reminder to "keep yer 'and on yer ha'penny" when unsupervised. I think this dates back to my great-grandmother, who would have been born in the 1870s or 80s."

"Angela" remembers: "Some time ago, my sister overheard her daughter and son talking about this very subject. 'If a boy's willy is called a penis, what's a girl's thing called?' said my niece to her younger brother. In all seriousness, he replied that it was called 'Fine China'. Sweet."

The article even includes some educational suggestions from other languages. Some Italians apparently refer to a woman's "private parts" (as us North Easterners apparently call them) as patatina, meaning "little potato." Also, conchiglietta, or "little shell." Yoni is a Sanskrit word, and zizzi is French.

So, we're curious, do you guys have any new suggestions, any childhood words for your fiorellas we should know about?

How to find an acceptable word for your daughter's genitals [Guardian]
Image via Little Baby Guide

You'd think someone who wrote a book on self-examination would learn to avoid saying things like, "I had an easier life than [my sister] did because I had an easier personality and it was easier for people to be sweet to me," and following that up with "I'm a physically lazy person. My sister was tougher and stronger and more disciplined. It was easier to do my chores for me than to get me to do them."

Lazy or no, it was Gilbert's early success that made her thirties so difficult for her.

I'd [...] lived a very accelerated decade in my 20s. My career started young and I was really ambitious, and then I had success and I hung out with people who were much older. I think I might have been temporally misplaced, so I thought I was 40. It was a premature midlife crisis.

The only thing less sympathetic than a midlife crisis is a midlife crisis that happens early because — oops! — I thought I was forty. But writers in particular will enjoy this description of Gilbert's early years:

After college, Gilbert knew she wanted to be a writer and also that her modest Connecticut background didn't furnish her with enough material. So she took off to have as many story-inspiring experiences as she could. She went to Wyoming to work as a cowhand; she got a rite-of-passage bar job in New York.

Once she was done providing herself with "experiences" (which some people get just by living), Gilbert sold a story to Esquire, and one to GQ that became the film Coyote Ugly. But she's happy that the big success of Eat Pray Love has come now, when she's "nearly 40 not 22," has "a solid relationship," and is equipped to deal with it.

Annoying as this all is, Gilbert does appear to have been set up. Early on in the piece, interviewer Emma Brockes writes, "there are lots of paths to self-discovery, but most of them don't conflate so many lucrative book markets in one handy volume," and describes Eat Pray Love's genre as "a strain of confessional publishing I once heard described as 'women who write about their yeast infections.'" It's possible Brockes is suffering from a little sour grapes, and to be fair, so are we. Which is (one of the reasons) why we didn't do an interview with Elizabeth Gilbert — we'll just link to it instead.

Lucky Me [Guardian]

Earlier: Did Eat, Pray, Love Sell Millions Because Elizabeth Gilbert Cheated On Her Husband?
Self Editor Follows Eat, Pray, Love Around The World — And Hates It!
You Will Hate Elizabeth Gilbert For Making You Love Eat, Pray, Love

It's not that Cooke doesn't offer good examples of this feminist regression — she does, from the country's deplorable rape conviction rate to the media's mauling of Amy Winehouse — it's that she, and the editors of the Observer, barely managed to speak to young British feminists about what was going on in the grass roots of the current movement.

Sure, she has one brief quote from 27-year-old Jess McCabe, the woman behind the excellent UK Feminist website The F Word, but of the eight articles about women in the Observer special, not a single one is written by an emerging feminist or speaks in depth to a woman under 35. There's an article about the women behind the 1970 National Women's Liberation Conference, and another article which is an interview with retired newscaster Anna Ford. But the only article that even attempts to speak to women in their 20s, barely bothers to speak to women specifically involved in the feminist movement.

That particular article, "What's it like to be young, female and living in Britain?" asks a range of young women, from models to Olympic athletes to a few activists, about their personal experiences. Silver medallist in modern pentathlon, Heather Fell, says: "In some ways I'm a traditionalist — I think the man should be there to look after the woman. For me, feminism means women thinking we can do everything without needing men and I don't agree with that." They speak to a 21-year-old engineer who says she's never encountered sexism, and a model who helped found the model's union in the UK who says, "I never liked the word 'feminist' — for me it always meant being against men, whereas I see myself fighting for general equality." One of only two self-proclaimed feminists the Observer talks to is burgeoning politician Rania Khan, who says "I describe myself as a feminist, but feminism doesn't make sense to me as a separate entity. I see it as part of the wider struggle for equality, alongside class and race. I want to see more women, especially from ethnic minorities, involved in politics. Women need to be educated and empowered to take those key positions; only then will we see change."

Khan's brief comments in that one article say far more about the state of modern feminism than the thousands of words spilled by older, and dare I say, more out of touch feminist lights. It's a movement that has become more global, and while it's certainly less cut and dry than the battles those 70s feminists were fighting, that doesn't mean the current issues are not important, or that feminism is dead. This is not to denigrate those incredibly important battles in the least, but I wonder if in some ways, it's time for print media to start handing over the mantle.

Two self-proclaimed feminists I see published in the MSM quite frequently are Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia. Both these women have contributed to the feminist lexicon, but these days they seem to be purely deliberate provocateurs, one of whom is obsessed with denigrating Hillary Clinton's appearance, and the other busy lashing out at Lady Di. The Observer's spread even includes one of these past-prime provocateurs, Fay Weldon, who has written in the Daily Mail recently about how teen girls should be temporarily sterilized and how the Spice Girls ruined feminism. Maybe the picture of modern feminism would not seem so bleak to the Observer if they looked beyond the old-fashioned, all-white faces of 20th century feminism to the new movements roiling right under their noses, yet curiously off their pages.

How Far Have We Come In 80 Years? [Guardian]
It's Been A Long Journey — And We're Not There Yet [Guardian]
The Interview: Anna Ford [Guardian]
What's It Like To Be Young, Female And Living In Britain? [Guardian]

Earlier: Camille Paglia Hates Hillary, Loves Mailer, Is Miffed At Madonna
Who's Afraid Of The Badly Dressed Princess?
Daily (Hate) Mail
British Novelist Says Spice Girls Made Generation Y Drunk, Slutty

"The report found that 75 different ethnicities were 'on offer.' I don't doubt this is true, but parlours have been known to try to pass off Thai women as Japanese, to give but one example," Lara writes. "I would suggest that, knowing the industry as I do, the actual number of women of different ethnicities on offer is somewhat smaller." Um…so what's your point? That your completely anecdotal evidence…doesn't disprove what they found through rigorous study?

Lara used to have an office job that provided enough for her family, and she has a university education, but with escorting, she has more time to spend with her children and a bigger disposable income. So in addition to her main argument, which is, prostitution funds my happy lifestyle, her second argument is that people who break the law don't care about the law in the first place, and so trying to catch them is pointless. "The report does not seem to take into consideration that the type of people who benefit from trafficking, be it for prostitution or otherwise, are likely to pay scant regard to the law," Lara writes. "As, indeed, are the men who wish to purchase sex from trafficked women."

Look, I don't doubt that there are women, like Lara, who entirely benefit from prostitution. As Lara argues, assuming that all prostitutes are victims is paternalistic. But that doesn't mean that many, many women — I'd be comfortable saying, the majority — are not prostitutes because they found their day jobs boring. They're prostitutes because they're forced to be or are in desperate circumstances. And to not attempt to help these women in some substantial way helps no one, or at least, no one besides Lara.

I'm A Sex Worker – Don't Take Away My Livelihood [Guardian]
Revealed: The Truth About Brothels [Guardian]

Madam,

I scarcely can find courage to address you, and particularly as I cannot flatter myself that you have noticed me in any way. But, at the risk of incurring your displeasure, I feel compelled to express, with all deference, the anxiety I feel to become better acquainted with you, and to confess that you have inspired feelings warmer than those a mere acquaintance might warrant.

The Secret Love Lives Of The Victorians [Guardian]

Earlier: How To Be A Good Husband
How To Be A Good Wife

This leaves us with a committee addressing the issues of "what do they eat?" and "do they abuse drugs and alcohol?" Can you imagine the music industry tasked with coming up with guidelines like this? They would laugh in your face. Why are models different? Because they are mainly women, and it is fine to treat women like 8-year-olds, given that women are so often the driving force of this bilge. And because they are beautiful, and beautiful people often can't think rationally, since God doesn't bless them with brains as well as beauty.

Oy: Now we're all confused and stuff! We thought feminism was supposed to be straightforward; you know, visible ribs = the patriarchy!

Another Fake Controversy [Guardian]
Earlier: Fashion Models: Total Cows
Related: Watch Your Step: Fashion Industry Told To 'Grow Up' Over Models' Health And Safety

But even if the inquiry does iron out the kinks in the British fashion industry, it will not resolve the problems within the industry as a whole. Anecdotal evidence, said Lady Kingsmill, suggested that "pastoral care of models" in Britain was better than it was elsewhere."

We're all for models bulking up to healthier weights, but subtly equating them with farm animals ain't gonna help matters!

Watch Your Step: Fashion Industry Told To 'Grow Up' Over Models' Health And Safety
Related: The Incredible Shrinking Model [NYMag]

A wall of sex toys — oddly including a range of silicone breast implants — is accompanied by videos of models demonstrating their use. A model of a man bent over invites you to spank him with a paddle, with lights showing whether you've gone too far, like a fairground test-your-strength machine. A plaster cast of a man and a woman invite you to feel inside for their G-spot or prostate. "That's it," they say encouragingly when you hit the right spot.

Uh, while we're all about interactivity (and we'd pay good money to see Tony Blair with his fingers up a plaster rectum!), we still believe that, like children, sex dolls are probably better seen, not heard.

Art Of Spanking At The Sex Academy [Guardian]

'I was at this party recently,' she remembers 'and this model, a very famous one, very big now, early twenties, came over to me and said "Oh my God, I saw the special that you did about you retiring from the Victoria's Secret runway and that was so beautiful, and we all look up to you", and all this stuff...

'And I was, like, "Well, thanks, girl, but your time is going to be coming! No time soon but maybe in 10 years, or 15, from now". She looked at me like I was crazy; said: "What are you talking about? This is all I know. This is all I do. I plan on modelling until, like I'm really old, I'm going to do it, I'm going to ..." and there was such a panic in her eyes. It was as if I'd spoken about her mortality'.

The story's author — who is inexplicably forced to take the bus all over Los Angeles (DUIs, perhaps?) — is just as ashamed as we are about how charming Tyra can be.

I take my leave of Banks, and catch the Dash bus across Los Angeles, because it costs about 10 red cents, and sit beside some normal, i.e. ugly people. There is a girl about Banks's age opposite me: worn, broken and, yes, fat - around the middle, genuinely fat. She could technically have been pregnant but only if she was going to give birth to rolls of wallpaper. Her T-shirt declares, between the stains, 'I blame the fame'.

It strikes me, of course, that both Banks and, more culpably, I, have missed a fairly large point: we were still, essentially, talking about models, and modelling, and pretty things, and a few extra pounds, and the world's poor, and grubby, and plain will not be having their lives changed, that much, by our encounter.

Sigh. Okay, right. Back to Britney humiliation posts.

The Supermodel Turned Spokeswoman [Guardian]

According to The Guardian hips may be hip again this spring when tulip shaped skirts show up in stores. Not likely this trend will take off since women have been taming their curves for generations, but if you're tempted, proceed with caution. Tulip skirts, like last season's balloon skirts, are not for everyone. They work for those who are lean above and below the skirt leaving one to imagine that there's a shapely little bum hiding underneath. http://www.guardian.co.uk/style/story/0,,1964133,00.html