PHOTOS: Jennifer Lopez's Most Memorable Looks (And There Are Many)
Author: The Huffington Post
While Jennifer Lopez's acting skills have been the topic of some debate, there is no question that the 42-year-old woman knows how to multi-task. Not only is she currently starring in "What To Expect When You're Expecting" alongside Cameron Diaz, Brooklyn Decker, Elizabeth Banks and more, the mother of two is a judge on American Idol, has created 18 fragrances, designs a collection with Kohl's and has time buy a Dodge Ram for her 25-year-old boyfriend Casper Smart.
To celebrate Lopez's role as Holly, a woman who adopts a child in "What to Expect When You're Expecting," which opens Friday nationally on May 18th, take a look back at some of Lopez's wildest looks over the years. Who could forget her deep green Versace gown? How about that bedazzled Sean Jean crop top? Let us know your favorite.
Want more? Flip through our many other Style Evolutions and be sure to check out Stylelist on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and Pinterest.
Blue Carreon: Move Over, 'Fashion Star,' and Make Way For Singapore's Future Fashion Now
Author: Blue Carreon
Because of the fast pace of fashion -- and the even faster pace of fast fashion companies at reproducing and replicating designer runway collections -- designers and brands have started making their collections available for purchase as soon as they hit the runway. Burberry has been one of the leaders of this business model. Retailers, too, have been quick to offer the same kind of service after recognizing that there are consumers who want immediate gratification. Even reality television has joined the bandwagon via the NBC show Fashion Star, which makes the collections shown on TV available at stores such as H&M and Saks Fifth Avenue the very next day.
The same concept is being put on a larger scale in Singapore through Future Fashion Now (FFN), which the organizers of the Asia Fashion Exchange has dubbed the "world's first live-streaming fashion week that lets fashion aficionados shop real time." The New York designer Timo Weiland headlined the event along with Esther Perbandt of Berlin and Yeojin Bae of Melbourne.
There are three days of shows from designers all over the world and all are live-streamed on the FFN website. Viewers online can click on the clothes and make their purchases right there and then. A deposit will be required and the garment will be produced in about a month's time. The collections will be available for viewing and purchase until the end of July.
"This is the first time something like this is being done," said Tina Tan Leo, founder of the homegrown label and international success story Alldressedup. The brand is taking part in the Future Fashion Now initiative and the collection will be shown in Singapore on Saturday.
By making the clothes ready for purchase right after the runway show, designers get a better gauge on what pieces from their collections are commercial success. This will help a great deal in streamlining their production costs.
To see and purchase the collections of Alldressedup, Timo Weiland and the other labels featured in the festival, visit the Future Fashion Now website.
Photo above are looks from Alldressedup courtesy of Alldressedup and Audi Fashion Festival Singapore
Read more from me on Style Intel
Yves Durif: The Doctor Stylist Is in: Consultation Is Key
Author: Yves Durif
Bonjour mes amis!
Last time we met we discussed how you should approach your "first date" with a new stylist. This time I want to discuss what to expect from your new salon and some "dealbreakers" that you shouldn't tolerate... now, let's go, we have an appointment!
Every new stylist-client relationship must begin with a consultation. The consultation is like the first phone call before going on a date; it sets the tone and provides an opportunity for both parties to discuss needs, limits and expectations. The consultation is where you sort out the underlying problems and find out how the stylist can remedy your hair issues. It's the foundation of a successful style and without it you are almost guaranteed to leave unsatisfied.
My consultations are relatively simple and there's only one rule: I MUST see my client in her own attire. (If you go into a salon and are draped in a robe before your stylist sees you, your cut is not going to respect your head to toe proportions.) Once seated, I ask the client how her hair makes her feel, then I share my observations:
"How do you feel about your hair?" "Ugh! I can't do anything with it. It's too flat, it's frizzy, and it just hangs there!"
"Ok. When was your last cut?"
"About, three months ago. I liked it the first couple of weeks, but as soon as it started to grow out I was back to square one."
"Can I tell you what I see when I look at your hair?"
I don't criticize or dwell on what's already been done, that's all in the past, we're working in the present. I don't ask what she wants to do with her hair, that question puts the client in an awkward position -- you wouldn't want your accountant to ask you how you want to calculate your taxes, right? Once my client tells me what she dislikes about her hair, I use that information to create my plan. Then, I give her a mirror, turn the chair and show her what her hair looks like from all angles:
"People spend very little time observing you from the front; it's a little awkward to stare directly into someone's face -- try it on the subway, I guarantee the number of empty seats around you will double. Most of the time it's only acceptable to observe someone from the back or side... "
Try looking at yourself from a different perspective, get a hand mirror and look at your profile.
With your free hand manipulate the shape of your hair and you'll see how much a cut can change your appearance. This method is the same one I use to help people understand what needs to be done in order to create a great style.
Another important part of the consultation is hair color. Color is a simple way to enhance a haircut and when done well, it can be very low maintenance. The greatest color results come from synergy between stylist, colorist and client. When your colorist is present during the consultation they are able to understand where the focal points of the haircut are. From there, he or she is able to play up these points and create even greater interest within your style.
After your consultation is complete, you should know what is going to be done and why. If you don't have a clear vision of the end result ask your stylist for a simple summary of what needs to be done. Once you've gained a full understanding of what you're going to accomplish you are ready to start the service. From here your stylist will send you to get a shampoo. Your shampooer should take the time to evaluate your hair and scalp and recommend a cleansing system that suits you. FYI, if the salon uses the same shampoo and conditioner on every client you're not receiving the best care possible and your hair will not perform well.
At the end of your cut the stylist should take time to recommend styling products and walk you through techniques that will allow you to create a style at home. At the end of your service, the stylist will show you all sides of the cut with a hand mirror. Now, take off the robe, stand up, and look at yourself head to toe. Do you feel gorgeous? You should!
When you're checking out at the front desk -- before payment is discussed -- the associate should ask if you were pleased with your experience and address any concerns. They should also ask if you need any products and help book any future appointments before you leave.
Overall, your new salon should ensure that you receive treatment that respects your individuality, "one size fits all" does not work in a hair salon -- remember the '80s?
Next time, we'll discuss the easiest way to shed up to five pounds in five minutes! Ooh la la...
A bientôt!
Yves
Patrick O'Neal: In Defense of Dad
Author: Patrick O'Neal
I'm sick of the low blows, the kidney punches, and the shots after the bell and on the breaks. I'm sick of all the trash talking. From Vanity Fair, The Today Show and The View just to name a few. From mean spirited bloggers who say my father is an awful man, and would be better off dead. That's my dad you're talking about and I don't like it. Not one bit. All this nasty criticism you throw at my dad reminds me of the guy that throws the sucker-punch. The weakling that hits someone when they aren't looking, and then disappears into the crowd because they're scared they might get punched back, or the coward that kicks someone in the head when they are already down. For no other reason than to be hurtful I suppose, but none of you have any idea what you're talking about. I do. I'm actually an expert on the subject.
My name is Patrick O'Neal, and my father is Ryan O'Neal and I'm here to stick up for my old man. I love him. I always have and I always will.
Tatum wrote a book. I wish she hadn't. Keep it in the locker-room I say. Griffin has gone on TV talk shows for decades demonizing our father, and has sold countless stories to the tabloids trashing Ryan so that he could profit. To partially quote Michael Corleone from The Godfather, I would tell them, "Tate, Griff, you are my older sister and brother and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever."
Is our family different than most? Sure. Have there been documented problems with Ryan's children? Yes. But not all of his kids have made the list. Nope, there is one of em that's doing okay. He has a cool job, a dream job actually, and pays his bills and loves his daughters. That's me. This guy right here. Am I interesting copy because I haven't been arrested? Hell no, that doesn't sell, and how does that support the fact that Ryan (according to everyone) has ruined all his kids lives?
Usually Ryan only has three children, but when I do get mentioned there's the thought, "Well, Patrick must not have ever spent any time with his Dad, he had to have been only raised by his mother, and that's the reason he hasn't gotten into trouble, says everyone." Cue WRONG buzzer sound effect please. Yes I went to summer camps and three years of boarding school in high school. Sure, I had countless positive influences in my life from my mother Leigh Taylor-Young, the nicest woman in the world, and a great actress to boot, to my grand-parents Don and Pauline and Patsy and Blacky, Aunt Dey and Uncle Lance, and teachers, coaches and counselors. But my dad was my hero.
My parents split up when I was three, but my dad was there to pick me up every weekend. And I couldn't wait for him to pull up in the Rolls and honk his horn. The coolest man ever. And he was my Dad. Talk about a lucky son. He was one of the biggest movie stars in the world. It was unreal how famous he was. He was the Golden Boy! The MAN! This is Rodney Harrington from Peyton Place, Oliver Barrett from Love Story, Howard Bannister from What's up, Doc?, Moses Pray from Paper Moon, Redmond Barry from Barry Lyndon, and The Driver!
That's his legacy! Those movies will last forever. And when people look back 50 years from now, when my kids tell their kids, that's what they'll remember. Not Barbara Walters interrogating him on The View. "Why are you such a lethal father?" asks BaBa Wawa. Please lady, get a clue. You don't know a thing about the type of parent my dad was. What, because he makes jokes with you and others in his interviews? That's how my dad has done interviews since 1965. Everything is a quip or a one-liner, and it always has been. In interviews or at parties or just with his friends, my dad is always making jokes. He makes light of everything, even in the darkest of moments. He likes to make people laugh. Some hit, some don't. Hey, my dad dominated TV and movies for two decades. He supported his family, everyone, from the time he was twenty-one. This is the most generous man in the world. Way too generous in my opinion.
When I was fifteen I moved in with him and Farrah, this would be in 1984 and Tatum and Griffin had already moved out, so I was the only kid in the house until little Redmond was born in 1985. I spent some important formative years with just my father as my caretaker, since my Mom had moved to New York. So there goes the theory that I wasn't around.
Oh, I was around. If you add up the number of sporting events my dad and I watched together on TV over the years, we are talking tens of thousands of hours. If you add up the number of Frisbee throws back and forth on the beach, it would be over a million. Add up the number of racket ball games we played, it's well over a thousand. And my dad won more than half, probably 75%, so he has the bragging rights. Plus he used to spot me ten points in the early years. But towards the end of our battles on the court, I closed the gap. I'm partly responsible for his two replaced knees, because I had a secret pleasure running him side to side and up and back.
It was fun and competitive. Very competitive, and there's nothing wrong with a little competition. My dad got me in shape and stressed exercise. I'm glad he made me do those fifty sit-ups on the slant board every day. I'm glad he pushed me to run the five miles to the pier and back on that soft sand. I was good at sports because of him. I have an awesome job as a sportscaster because of what he taught me. I am a loving parent because of him. When the three of us were little we used to wrestle him for hours. We would attack him from all angles. We would spend days in the pool, and he would throw us from side to side, over and over and over. It was so much fun, the most fun I ever had. I've heard there are some kids that didn't get to toss the ball around with their Dad and I feel sorry they missed out on that love, because I cherish the memories.
Shame on Vanity Fair for the article after Farrah died. What, they couldn't write a tribute to one of the biggest stars ever? Farrah was just an amazing person, and so darn beautiful inside and out. She was one of a kind. For being so famous, she never acted like she was. She was nice to everyone. Especially me. But Vanity Fair writes just a trashy article, not about Farrah, but more about my dad and anything negative this writer could think up. "Beautiful People, Ugly Choices" was the headline. What a disgrace that piece was. I had thought Vanity Fair was a quality magazine, but it's more like a trashy tabloid actually.
My whole life I have avoided getting involved in the public disputes, but The Today Show changed that for me. My dad did an interview with Matt Lauer to promote his book Both of Us about his life with Farrah, and when Matt asked if he was a bad parent, Ryan answered "I guess so, look at my work." Matt asked the questions people wanted him to ask. Just doing his job. But the next day The Today Show torched Ryan during their "Professionals" segment.
The subject was "Ryan O'Neal's Family Drama"; only Ryan O'Neal wasn't there to defend himself. It was Dr. Nancy Snyderman saying "there is a window into the dysfunctionality and sad parenting and frankly what seemed like a very traumatic childhoods for these kids. And also I don't know why you come on television with a band-aid on your nose."
Wait there's more, "these kids may have been genetically programmed for some level of drug use." Okay, he had a band-aid on his nose because he had melanoma surgery. And is there actual proof that drug addiction is genetic? I didn't know that. There are a lot of people that do drugs in this world, and I'm not sure any of us really know the answers as to why they start or continue to use. I suppose it could be lots of reasons, addiction being the main one. It's irresponsible for a doctor to make that statement.
Then there's Donny Deutsch. Here's what he said: "Clearly these kids are so messed up, and that is clearly a guy that should not have had the license to have kids." He wasn't done there, "as a father he made me want to puke; as a man I don't have any respect for him." So here's a guy from New York named Donny taking a cheap shot at my dad. Well, Donny, I sure am glad he had a license to have kids, because I'm here and my amazing daughters Sophia and Veronica are here, and thank God for that. I would like to revoke Donny's license for saying ignorant and damaging things on TV.
And I'll tell you something about my siblings. Tatum O'Neal is incredible. When I was six she was winning an Academy Award, and she was a freaking movie star. She is funny, athletic and a great actress. And she loves her three kids. I adored her growing up, and who wouldn't? I was very popular at school because of Tatum, let me tell you. Every kid wanted to know what she was like and if she really was throwing that curve in Bad News Bears. Yep, it was Tate. She was always very kind and generous to me. We had some fun times together. Tatum rocks.
I couldn't wait to play with Griffin on those weekends. We did everything together. Griffin is a musical genius. Self-taught. He was the best surfer on the beach. We were always in the ocean. We got into some trouble together. Griff was always looking for trouble. He was a tough one for my dad to handle. Ryan did his best. Griff was very close to starring with my dad in The Champ. My dad dropped out when Griff didn't get it at the last minute. Griffin would've been great in that movie. I remember them running their lines for the auditions. They were good, let me tell you. And then as a young teen he starred in a couple of movies. Too bad he wasn't able to fly straight. He was one talented guy. I hope Griff does good time, and get's out and takes care of himself and his family.
And Redmond was my little buddy. I love him and I'm sorry it's been so hard for him to get clean and stay clean. I pray that he can make it happen, because he has a wonderful chance to make a difference in this world. He has the financial means to help others, to travel, and enjoy the rest of his life. I love you Red, I know you can do it!
For the record, my dad did not "hit" on Tatum at Farrah's funeral; I was there, so just erase that from your mind. I know it's hard to let it go, because it just seems so juicy, but you can do it.
I haven't been a perfect son or brother. I have been busy trying to be a good father to my girls, and do the best job I can as a broadcaster. I haven't always been there for my dad or my brothers, sister, nieces and nephews. For that I'm sorry. I believe in family, and I believe in our family. That's why I wrote this, it's about FAMILY. I love you all. And Dad, thanks for everything you have done for me over the years. I'm sorry I disappeared from time to time. I was trying to make my way in this world -- not always easy. I made mistakes, and hurt your feelings along the way, and I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry you are going through a tough time right now. I know you miss Farrah and you're dealing with some physical and emotional pain. Please hang in there because we still make a good paddle tennis team, even if I have to carry us. Team O'Neal forever!
WATCH: Coco Rocha Proves How Hard Models Work
Author: Ellie Krupnick
Models are often underestimated, told that their line of work is easy and that all it takes is to stand there and look pretty. (Or, as this writer's mother would comment while watching "America's Next Top Model," "I just don't get what they're doing.")
But Coco Rocha, one of the top strutters in the biz, proves that being a model actually takes skills and not simply a gorgeous face. As a Guest Editor for Target's Tumblr (yes, Target has a Tumblr), Coco shot a one-minute video called "The Making Of A Cover Shot."
In less than sixty seconds, she shows all us amateurs how it's done. She jumps, waves her arms, flips her hair, all so effortlessly and instinctively and with no inhibitions whatsoever. How does she squat so gracefully? How does she know to bend her fingers just like that?
She's a good model, that's how. Because modeling takes skillz. Check it out in the video above... and see Coco work her stuff in the slideshow below.
PHOTOS: Near Wardrobe Malfunctions!
Author: Jessica Misener
This week in wardrobe malfunctions (and close calls) is notable for bringing us the riskiest dress ever -- Micaela Schaefer's dress of VHS tape horrors.
There were some other celebs who we feared would make a huge wardrobe blunder this week. Check out the slideshow to see our picks for who came closest to a nip slip, a sheer dress fail and other blushworthy outfit foibles!
Gregory Weinkauf: The Science Behind Battleship
Author: Gregory Weinkauf
Rihanna is quite good in her big-screen debut.
Now that I have your attention, this article is actually about the extraterrestrial concepts which inform the big new movie Battleship. For those three people in Borneo who've missed the marketing onslaught, let me give you a quick primer.
Battleship is based on the legendary Hasbro board game (indeed, targeting grids are played, and "peg"-like missiles imbed themselves in big grey navy boats). It's also the story of a youngish rapscallion (Taylor Kitsch, making Keanu look like Olivier) who joneses hard for a blonde hottie (Brooklyn Decker, blonde, hot). Seeking to impress her patriarchal Admiral dad (Liam Neeson, who could mumble the periodic table and I'd go twice), the husky-voiced ruffian takes charge of a besieged, very small fleet in Hawaii -- thus to combat extremely hostile space aliens with much larger and more devastating ships best described as giant rabid robotic leaping water panthers.
This is essentially a Michael Bay movie sans sillies (though directed by Peter Berg). Stuff blows up for two hours in so utterly rocking a manner that afterward you may have weird dreams about AC/DC being a primary component of volatile naval skirmishes. (And Rihanna, though limited to shouting one-liners -- "Mahalo, motherf-!" -- confidently presses those buttons to make things go boom.) Yet somehow, with Tom Morello's mega-guitar noodles atop everybody squinting and growling like Batman atop stunning ILM effects atop the loudest and most relentless movie explosions ever, this thing works. I was particularly impressed by the elder veterans and a disabled veteran (Gregory D. Gadson) striving on land and sea to combat their common alien foe -- even if the aliens do look and sound remarkably like Stone Temple Pilots in Iron Man suits.
It was this theme -- what do we really know about who's out there? -- which led me to Dr. Seth Shostak, a consultant on the movie whose day job as Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) involves scanning space for signs and signals of anybody out there who might want to talk with us. Since those sorts of interviews could be a long way off, I spoke with the eminent and presumably human Dr. Shostak -- both before and after his screening of Battleship. He advocates all sorts of methods of searching, from optical and radio telescopes to training our focus on distant stars, lest alien construction fleets get busy around them. First I ask him where in the cosmos we'd be most likely to find intelligent alien life. "We don't know," he candidly replies. "Not yet.
"We do know now, it seems, according to results that have been published in the last month or so, that most stars have planets, but of course not all planets are suitable for life. A planet like Mercury, no matter how clever the aliens are, they're probably not going to eke out an existence on a planet like Mercury -- or for that matter, Neptune, or any of those. So we want to know how many of those planets are out there which are sort of like Earth, and where they are, and we're just beginning to learn that, thanks to the NASA Kepler telescope."
We discuss a term used in Battleship -- "Goldilocks planet" -- where "the porridge is just right" for life. And this leads to the notion that if there were life out there, would it resemble Hollywood aliens, friend or foe?
"We tend to imagine them as being anthropomorphic, that they sort of look like us, because in the movies they usually do," muses Shostak. "They're humanoid, but something terrible has happened to them, if you will, and they've had parts of their bodies replaced with things that look a little odd to us. But of course Hollywood is somewhat compelled to do that, because if they looked like bicycles or something like that, you wouldn't know how to relate to them. So for storytelling reasons, they assume that they'll look something like us. And there are some scientists who agree."
Shostak names Simon Conway Morris, of Cambridge University, who believes the human form to be optimal for a thinking being. Noting that, unlike Morris, he's not an evolutionary biologist, Shostak nonetheless politely disagrees: "All you have to do is go to the zoo, and look at what's there. And those are all Earthlings, those are all things that share a lot of our DNA, the fish, the snakes, and all, and they don't look like us."
I ask about inorganic intelligence. Like, for instance, are there free-roaming clouds of intelligent electrons? "There are clouds of electrons floating around, plenty of 'em!" he assures me. "Even in the Earth's atmosphere. But they're not particularly clever, because to be clever requires a certain degree of organization, and clouds of electrons are not very well organized."
Okay, this is a fun conversation. Shostak also probes the notion of intelligent clouds of gas, but leans toward the far likelier A.I., Artificial Intelligence. "We don't have that here on Earth yet, but there are plenty of people in plenty of places working on artificial intelligence, and while they haven't succeeded, they fully expect to succeed." He cheerfully continues with an eerie concept: "Now let's say that it takes another hundred years. Nobody knows, but you have to say that's really very interesting, because it means that from the point that we developed technology, within a few hundred years of that, we've invented thinking machines. And so if the aliens have done that too, then they've invented their own replacements, if you will. Or if not replacements, at least successors.
"So it could very well be -- and I think this is a very reasonable hypothesis -- that the majority of the intelligence in the cosmos is in fact not organic, it's artificial intelligence. Because once you invent that, then it can design its own successors, and do a much better job of i
t that we could. And beyond that, it's not stuck with Darwinian evolution anymore -- as we are. So it sounds to me like that's the way to go."
I turn us to the matter of Battleship's "Beacon project," which is the sort of thing against which Steven Hawking recently warned, i.e., deliberately transmitting messages into space, hoping to contact aliens. Shostak posits that the sort of alien this is likely to attract wouldn't be the cobbler who sits around back in Barcelona fixing shoes -- but rather the Conquistadors firmly bent on territorial conquest. "If aliens were to come to Earth," he suggests, "I would not be surprised if the ones you met would not be the friendly ones."
Hm. But have we sent such signals? He notes that as recently as 2008 (to celebrate their 50th birthday), NASA beamed the Beatles' "Across the Universe" out to Polaris, the North Star, 431 light years away. Do we expect anybody to sing along? "Who knows," laughs the astronomer, "maybe the aliens don't like the Beatles." Funny, as much as I love "Across the Universe," I'd say the aliens in Battleship would definitely lean Stones. Meanwhile, Dr. Shostak heads off to see the movie, and then our conversation resumes.
"It was pretty enjoyable, actually," he later opines. "You know, it's an action film, and it's not going to change my philosophy of life. But I have to say I enjoyed it." The scientist continues: "I'll be honest, when I saw the film tonight, it was the battle that interested me, more than the problem with the misbehaving young officer trying to date the Admiral's daughter. Those are stories we've seen many times. Whereas seeing the U.S. Navy take on the aliens, we've never seen that." As a veteran of digital animation himself (via DIGIMA, the company he founded in the Netherlands), he adds, "the visuals were pretty darned impressive."
We also discuss the diversity of the sailors. Shostak grew up in Arlington, Va., with the Pentagon a stone's throw away, amongst many government and military people. "There's a lot of variety in the characters being portrayed. And here we are at Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese are on our side. And you could say, 'Oh, isn't that trite, or clichéd?' -- but I'll tell you, the audience at this screening tonight, they cheered, not just at one spot in the film. They cheered and they applauded many times in the film." He notes, "My wife enjoyed the film, and she's not big on sci-fi."
Then we get down to the science of connecting with extraterrestrials. We have a few light laughs over highly serendipitous interstellar reception and radio waves made to look like bright blue triangulating laser beams, and Shostak gets frank: "I think it does handle a few things. Once again, it suggests that aliens could be anthropomorphic, they could look like us -- because these guys looked like guys out of a retirement home, with prickly goatees." The movie also closely paraphrases Hawking's warning: "Mind you, that has been debated in the SETI community, too: Is it safe to transmit? That's a legitimate issue, and it was certainly highlighted in the film."
Our discussion spans classic '50s sci-fi, the moon landings of the '60s and '70s, and the scuttling of manned Mars exploration in favor of "sending motorized skateboards to Mars." Shostak is an insightful fellow, and these topics prove bountiful, but we steer toward something more soulful: How does space exploration, and research in general, benefit our world which is already beset with so many problems?
"'Why are we spending money on this?' It seems so frivolous to some," explains Shostak. "So I have to answer that question fairly frequently. I think it is essential to do basic research -- you know, Europeans are spending five billion on finding the Higgs bozon; if you were to ask the next person you meet on the street what they think of the Higgs bozon, I'm sure it would be nothing.
"It's because of curiosity. And curiosity sounds like something that's very superficial: 'We can't afford curiosity. We have to deal with real social problems, or war and peace, or the climate,' or whatever. But the facts are that curiosity is, in the end, what saves us, every time. Because basic research always pays off, and if you don't do that, if you don't have that curiosity, that dynamism, then you're going to be like ancient Egypt -- which was a very static society for three thousand years. And in the end it was very fragile and vulnerable. The Greeks took it over, and then the Romans, because it was a static society.
"Even the government has reckoned that for every dollar they spend on NASA, the civilian economy eventually gets ten dollars back. It sounds to me like if you want to stimulate the economy, just put the whole federal budget into NASA: 'Get ten dollars back for each dollar!'"
Beats funneling it all into war machines, I offer. Unless of course scenarios like that of Battleship come our way. (I'd take that risk.)
We close on a chuckle over something Shostak firmly does not do, which is to confirm U.F.O. encounters. Apparently a third of the population of the U.S. believe that we have been visited (which the good Doctor does not believe), so I ask why so many of these flying saucers tend to find their way to this country specifically.
"They usually come to the American Southwest, you see," laughs Dr. Seth. "They really like the Tex-Mex cuisine."
Battleship opens this Friday across America.
Battleship photos courtesy of Universal Pictures.
Dr. Shostak on the Huffington Post
Michael Kleinmann: Male Underwear Models: Just People
Author: Michael Kleinmann
According to a new study published in the May 2012 issue of Psychological Science, men and women in sexy underwear ads are processed astonishingly differently by the human brain. The brain processes women in underwear as objects, and men in underwear as people.
The difference in how the two sexes are processed is due in part to sexual objectification, which has been studied and documented at great length. Much of the documented research, however, focuses on only the effects of this objectification.
"What's unclear is, we don't actually know whether people at a basic level recognize sexualized females or sexualized males as objects," says Philippe Bernard of Université libre de Bruxelles in Belgium.
To test whether or not sexy men and women wearing underwear in suggestive poses were seen as people or objects, psychologists used a tried and true method of seeing if a test subject views an item as an object or something else: by turning the image of the item in question upside down.
Why? Because pictures of humans create a recognition problem when turned upside down; objects, however, are easily identified whether right side up or not. According to a press release summarizing the study, psychologists conducting the study "used a test where they presented pictures of men and women in sexualized poses, wearing underwear. Each participant watched the pictures appear one by one on a computer screen. Some of the pictures were right side up and some were upside down. After each picture, there was a second of black screen, then the participant was shown two images. They were supposed to choose the one that matched the one they had just seen."
Verdict? Test subjects recognized "right-side-up men better than upside-down men, suggesting that they were seeing the sexualized men as people." The women, however, weren't any harder to identify whether they were upside down or not, "which is consistent with the idea that people see sexy women as objects."
It's a constant problem for women, being viewed as an object instead of a person: this is common knowledge. The realization, however, that men in their underwear are, unlike their female counterparts, seen as people and not objects is a revelation that will have us scratching our heads for days ... underwear models are people?!
Courtesy Photo: © 2012 Jake Joseph
What do you think? Visit The Underwear Expert, the go-to resource on Men's Underwear, for photos of male underwear models that will help you decide. If you need them turned upside down, you're on your own.
Adam Glassman: Style at Any Age
Author: Adam Glassman
I have always believed that fashion should be democratic -- how can something be perceived as fabulous if it only looks great on a rail-thin 17-year-old? Yes, fashion should be aspirational and inspirational, but real women need and deserve chic, inspired clothes that make them feel beautiful and work for them IN REAL LIFE. At New York Fashion Week, my colleagues are often ooh-ing and ahh-ing over the pieces that will make news (I'm talking about see-through blouses, short shorts, and heels that even the models have a hard time walking in), and I am asking myself, "Where are women going in this look?" Sometimes, I feel like what I'm seeing is appropriate only for red carpets, nightclubs or pole dancing. It's a wonder that I haven't jumped out of my seat screaming. Am I the only one who feels like Norma Rae at these shows?
I believe in clothes for women who have real lives -- who want to look and feel great at all times. I travel around the country a lot, and no matter where I am -- an airport, a restaurant, a department store -- women are always asking me the same questions: Am I too old to wear a mini-skirt? Skinny jeans? Platforms? Should I dress more conservatively? How can I look trendy without looking tawdry? Honestly, I always give the same response: Wear what you love. Know and accept your body, and dress to highlight your assets. It's not about age, it's about attitude, charisma and allure, how you walk and carry yourself. Clothes should make you feel alive and beautiful, because confidence is the ultimate accessory.
In my role as a judge in the Wilhelmina 30+ Model Search, I've met hundreds of gorgeous, vivacious women. Even though only one will win a modeling contract, just by entering I think it shows incredible confidence and spirit. And that's really what looking great is all about.
I do have a few Golden Rules that apply to all women, regardless of age:
There are also some general guidelines that can help you look chic and age-appropriate, depending on where you are in life:
In your 30s:
It's still ok to be trendy, sexy and cool -- even go gamine or tomboy. Don't be afraid to slip into slinky pieces if they suit your body and the occasion.
In your 40s:
It's all about mixing high and low. At this point in your life, you've probably already invested in the basics: a good blazer, a classic cashmere sweater, the perfect trousers. Now's the time to incorporate fun pieces into your wardrobe: try adding an extravagant piece to something simple, like a fabulous beaded top worn with a well-tailored pencil skirt. Know and own your assets, go for grown-up sexy and show a sliver of skin, whether you have great legs, terrific décolletage or flawless shoulders.
In your 50s and beyond:
Stick to simple staples in luxurious fabrics: think timeless chic, covered-up elegance. At this point in your life, less is more -- leave the crazy, high-heeled platforms to the younger generations and use accessories like a silk scarf, a structured bag or a kitten-heel shoe in an eye-catching color to add personality to your wardrobe.
PHOTOS: Rodarte Costumes That Will Soon Come To Life
Author: The Huffington Post
Fashion's star sisters, Kate and Laura Mulleavy of Rodarte, are bringing their ethereal style to the LA Philharmonic.
The Rodarte sisters have designed elaborate costumes, displayed in the slideshow below, for three characters in the philharmonic's production of Mozart's opera, "Don Giovanni." The costumes include headpieces, wigs and over 130,000 Swarovski crystals, Styleite reports. That's enough bling for even viewers in nose-bleed seats to admire!
Kate said about creating the designs, "It took a while to understand the characters, their motivations and what we wanted to visualize. Frank [Gehry, who's doing production design for the opera] told us from the beginning that it was about the music, and our job was to help that," TIME reports.
Laura added, "The costumes are the kind of thing that you want to lift the music — you don't want to compete or kill it. This music is so powerful throughout."
Before this project, the Mulleavy sisters designed the ballet costumes for "Black Swan" and recently displayed at LACMA dresses inspired by a monk's frescoes.
"Don Giovanni," led by Gustavo Dudamel, will be performed at the Walt Disney Concert Hall on May 18, 20, 24 and 26.
Click through the Mulleavys' sketches for a sneak preview of the costumes that will soon come alive on stage:
Photos courtesy of Rodarte's Facebook:
Author: The Huffington Post Canada
Summer's all about sailing on yachts, travelling to exotic destinations and relaxing in bathing suits under the sun -- if you're a celeb or have the cash flow, of course. But that doesn't mean we, for those of us lacking equity, can't feel like a million bucks.
Enter MAC Cosmetics' 'Hey, Sailor' summer 2012 collection. The line includes bright peach blushes, shimmery bronzers and navy blue eyeshadows as well as nail polish -- all of which help us channel a little south-of-France even if we can't get there ourselves.
We love the tinted sunscreen for anyone who is in need of a sexy glow, and who could resist that white and navy blue striped packaging? This is definitely one of MAC's more visually appealing collections of the year. It's set to hit shelves on June 1.
Is MAC's new collection making waves or just washing out? Let us know in the comments below:
Brooklyn Decker: 'Battleship' Isn't 'Rihanna and Me Saying B-4'
Author: The Huffington Post
Funny story: Brooklyn Decker is currently promoting two very, very different movies -- "Battleship" and "What To Expect When You're Expecting." On the day of our interview, Decker was promoting both films. Two points here: (A) I did not know this, and (B) Decker had been mistakenly told that our interview was about "What to Expect." So, yes, my first question was about "Battleship" and her first answer was in reference to "What To Expect." Luckily, we soon figured out the confusion.
In "Battleship," Decker plays the young, pregnant trophy wife of Dennis Quaid.
(Drat, I did it again. Let me start over.)
In "Battleship," Decker plays Samantha Shane, the girlfriend of a young navy lieutenant named Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) -- a man who must save the world from aliens and build up enough courage to ask Samantha's father (Liam Neeson) for her hand in marriage. Here, Decker explains why, if you look for realism in your summer action movie based on a board game, you're doing it wrong.
I feel the less I really think about some of the things that happen in this movie, the better.
I think the biggest thing was to just have fun with it. You know, with these type of movies, for the audience, sometimes you want to stick true to the story -- and, with what I was going through, it was just a matter of having fun and being silly and providing some levity. It's a comedy, no doubt about it. But there's a lot of "real" there as well. There's couple who can't conceive and there's ovulating. You know, this same question could apply to the aliens in "Battleship"...
Wait, I am asking about "Battleship."
Oh! You were talking about "Battleship"!
Sorry, that first statement must have been confusing.
Have you seen "What To Expect"? Because my character is completely ridiculous.
I have seen that movie, too. They are very different.
OK, "Battleship"! We just wanted the audience to have fun. The thing about Peter Berg as a filmmaker ... I mean, it is a movie about aliens. And it is full of a lot of fun, but it definitely has something real to it. In the scene with the old salts -- they're all World War II vets. We used real Wounded Warriors. But as far as having fun and forgetting relate, you have to with alien movies.
After the movie ended, a friend of mine was complaining that a real battleship wouldn't stop on a dime once an anchor is dropped. I feel he might have missed the point.
No, a battleship would not jerk to a stop in a matter of 60 seconds. Do you really want us to show the battleship taking 20 minutes to stop? I mean, that would be really boring. That would be incredibly boring for the audience. Yes, some of it [laughs] -- you have to keep it going. But, obviously, an anchor isn't going to stop a battleship that quickly. If your friend wants, we could do it for real and see if his moviegoing experience would be better.
I'm now imagining this as a 20 minute scene.
Yeah, if he wants us to be true to the actual action, we can do that. But I think it would make for a much more boring film.
The nine hour epic, "Battleship."
Exactly!
On set, is Peter Berg insane?
Oh my gosh, he's wild. He is crazy. He is totally crazy, but the best kind. For some reason, I am one of those people who loves crazy. I get along with crazy people. So, he and I are like two peas in a pod. And he's become a good friend of mine. The guy would literally hide in bushes and fire off machine guns in the middle of a scene so I would get an authentically fearful reaction. He'll go there for his actors. And as an actor, it's fun. You never know what you're going to get with Pete and it's super high energy all of the time.
I loved the scene in which Gregory Gadson, a real life war veteran, knocked out an alien's teeth. That got a huge reaction.
I know. He's wonderful. I love Greg, he and I are actually still friends. What I loved about it, again, is that Pete wanted something that felt real. And no actor knows what it's like to go through fighting a war, losing both of your legs and coming back and having to live with that. No actor can really know what that feels like. And when he was on set, you could never complain, "Life is good, I have it easy, this is great." And he and I got really close, really fast. Because, you know, I was terrified -- this is only my second movie and I had never done anything like this. And I think that made us have this really great filming experience, because we really trusted each other.
Speaking of it being your second movie, has there ever been any negativity toward you? Like, "You don't belong here"?
You know, I am a new actor. I have been studying for a long time, but, you know, I'm only two movies in. To say that I'm an expert in anything would be ridiculous and pompous and it's just not the case. So, I was very nervous going into this.
And you're very well known for your work in another field. Is there a stigma?
I mean, luckily, with someone like Pete, he's known for making really unusual casting choices and having them be successful casting choices. Rihanna in this movie, for example. The entire cast of "Friday Night Lights." Luckily, the people on this set trusted his judgement. At the end of the day, there probably will be a lot of reservations with me coming into acting. You know, that's completely understandable. But, on set, the people see that you're there to work and there to study and put in the time -- you know, no one can fault you for that. And I had an unbelievably supportive crew and cast.
To be fair, when you come on the set, I think people are a little apprehensive at first. I think once they see that you're there to turn it out and you're there to really be new and be open to criticism, I think they're much more welcoming. Luckily, I had a respective cast and crew that were like, "OK, she wants to actually do a good job. She's not here to increase her star by any means, she's here to work."
Your character's name is Samantha, which is a fine name. But I feel you drew the short straw on "cool names" in this movie. Alexander Skarsgard plays a guy named "Stone."
That's true. "Hopper." I had never thought of that. That's very true. Now you're building a little bit of a beef between Pete and I. I really need to take this up with him. But she's kind of all-American girl-next-door, but a little bit tomboyish and tough. And "Sam" sort of fits that. But, yeah, "Raikes," "Stone"... Well, Alex (Kitsch's character) isn't [a cool name], but, then again, he goes by "Hopper."
Which is a cool name.
Jeeze.
I didn't mean to create strife.
Yeah, thanks a lot. Everything was going so well.
How many times have you seen this movie?
Well, I screened it once by myself -- which was a horrible experience.
Why is that?
Never watch a movie by yourself in a movie theater. You want to hear the crowd reacting. That was not fun. But I've seen it four times.
The scene that actually resembles a game of Battleship, do the crowds you've seen it with always get that?
I think there's a collective, "Aw, OK." You know, some of the references, people I had mentioned it to didn't really catch on. Like the alien missiles, for example, are shaped like the red pegs on the game. And when they fire and hit the ship, they can hit it, but it won't sink the battleship until the pegs go all the way down the ship. There are a lot of cheeky references to the game. but the most obvious one is definitely the buoy reference. To be fair, everyone is like, "How are you going to make a movie about the game Battleship?" Peter didn't have a lot of responsibilities to the board game, but he wanted to just kind of, sort of tongue-in-cheek, nods to the game in there. He added that in there, but it's not too literal. It's not Rihanna and me playing for two hours and saying "B-4."
Someone who wants to watch a ship stop over the course of 20 minutes might like that.
Exactly.
Mike Ryan is senior entertainment writer for The Huffington Post. He likes Star Wars a lot. You can contact Mike Ryan directly on Twitter.
Skecher Shape Ups: Why Toning Shoes Don't Deliver On The Hype
Author: The Huffington Post
In the world of too-good-to-be-true fitness claims, this one might just take the cake: can lacing up a humble pair of shoes really impart the curves of Kim Kardashian?
The answer (no shocker here) is, of course, no. But that's the claim that Skechers made with their Shape-Ups shoes, with fit celeb endorsements from Kardashian, Brooke Burke and more.
According to Skechers, the shoes allegedly rev up workouts with a "rocking" sole designed to throw the body off balance and force the wearer to "use more energy with every step," the Associated Press reported.
The company claimed: “Four clinical studies in the U.S. and Japan show that Shape-ups increase muscle activity and energy consumption over standard fitness shoes!” Unfortunately, further investigation revealed that these studies were not peer reviewed and didn't display the rigorous science required to make health claims by the Federal Trade Commission.
The sneakers, which carried a $100-plus price tag, have been questioned on their efficacy, along with their other "toning shoe" counterparts. And on Wednesday, Skechers was delivered a $40 million dollar reality check -- the amount they'll have to pay out to settle charges from the Federal Trade Commission for making unfounded claims, says the AP.
According to an MSN report:
"The FTC's message, for Skechers and other national advertisers, is to shape up your substantiation or tone down your claims," said David Vladeck, director of the agency's consumer protection bureau. For millions of consumers, he said, "the only thing that got a workout was their wallet."
And Skechers aren't the only shoes to have their fitness claims stamped out. Last year, Reebok reached a $25 million settlement with the commission over its EasyTone and RunTone shoes.
But why don't these shoes work, anyway?
"While the rocker bottom design does put you off balance, one of the wonderful things about the human body is that we have an enormous adaptive capability," Cedric Bryant, Ph.D., chief science officer for the American Council on Exercise, tells the Huffington Post. "It’s one of those things where perception becomes reality in a lot of the users’ minds ... But when you actually objectively measure what’s happening from a physiological standpoint, there really is no difference in those shoes compared to traditional running shoes."
In 2010, ACE commissioned a study with exercise scientists from the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse to evaluate the effectiveness of Shape-Ups, as well as MBT: Masai Barefoot Technology shoes and Reebok EasyTone sneakers. In two trials, the researchers tested exercise responses to walking and muscle activation in both the toning shoes and plain-old athletic sneakers. The difference? None.
"Across the board, none of the toning shoes showed statistically significant increases in either exercise response or muscle activation during any of the treadmill trials," the researchers wrote in their report. "There is simply no evidence to support the claims that these shoes will help wearers exercise more intensely, burn more calories or improve muscle strength and tone."
While some loyalists claimed to feel sore after wearing the shaping shoes (that must mean they work, right?), it turns out a little discomfort doesn't prove a thing.
“Do you feel different when you’re wearing these shoes? Of course you do because you’re walking on probably an inch worth of cushioning,” John Porcari, Ph.D., program director of the Clinical Exercise Physiology Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, said in the report. "They feel different, and that’s why when people first wear them they’re probably going to be sore because you’re using different muscles. But if you wear any sort of abnormal shoes that you’re not used to wearing, your muscles are going to get sore. Is that going to translate into toning your butt, hamstrings and calves? Nope. Your body is just going to get used to it."
In fact, these types of rocker soles could actually do some harm, says Jackie Sutera, a New York City podiatrist. While they can be helpful for people with certain conditions, such as arthritis, they certainly won't tone you rear and reduce cellulite, and they might actually hurt your feet. Sutera has seen cases of tendonitis, stress fractures and sprains in her office from the overuse of toning shoes.
Instead, she recommends sticking with classic sneakers, choosing a pair to match your activity (running and walking shoes for, you guessed it, running and walking, and specialized pairs for specific sports like basketball or tennis). It's also important, she explains, to evaluate your arch to figure out the right type of support. Someone with a high arch will need more cushioning, for instance, while someone with a flat foot will need a more rigid shoe with motion control.
If there's a positive side of toning shoes, Bryant says it's that the aggressive marketing might have encouraged more people to get up and get moving -- and that's never a bad thing. But a pair of sneakers won't be your weight loss magic bullet. If you really want to do something to rev up your walk, he suggests pumping your arms more vigorously, adding hills to your route or wearing a weighted vest, instead.
Canadian Designer Creates A New Perfume Sold At Sephora
Author: TheKit.ca
By: TheKit.ca
Quebec designer Marie Saint Pierre is also a perfumer and her two signature scents—named mysteriously B and C—are now available at 12 Sephora locations across the country.
Related: Marie Saint Pierre for Reitmans
B is sweet and sensual and features maple, caramel and Turkish rose. C is a musk with ingredients of saffron, orange blossom and cedar.
Related: Best Men’s Colognes For Women
Each bottle comes adorned with a rectangular piece of art glass by Quebec artist Melanie Laplante and Saint Pierre encourages customers to turn the glass extra into a necklace or bracelet by threading onto a piece of ribbon.
More from TheKit.ca:
Essie Ballet Slippers Turns 30
Groom your brows and look younger
The style guru you need to know
Related on The Huffington Post: tje best and worst celebrity perfume bottles.
Want more? Be sure to check out HuffPost Canada Style on Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest.
PHOTOS: Norway's Royal Family Gets Decked Out For Norwegian Constitution Day
Author: Ellie Krupnick
Sure, we fawn over Kate Middleton's "real girl" style. But we'll never get tired of seeing royals in their traditional garb, whether it be the Queen of Bhutan in colorful robes or Queen Elizabeth II all blinged out in her classic queenly regalia.
Today the Norwegian royal family got decked out in their best for Norwegian Constitution Day, which celebrates the signing of Norway's constitution in 1814.
Princess Mette-Marit, Prince Haakon and their children Prince Sverre Magnus and Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway all donned bunads, traditional Norwegian costumes that include white shirts, long dark skirts, aprons, red accents and knee socks (the kind that look slightly ridiculous on grown men but impossibly cute on little boys like Prince Sverre Magnus).
Even the family pup, a labradoodle named Milly Kakao, got into the holiday spirit with a festive red ribbon around her neck. Which gets us thinking: do royal dogs hang out together like human royals? Say, a doggie playdate between Milly and Lupo? And can Bo come?
The long skirt and red vest are a definite change for Princess Mette-Marit, who favors neutral colors and luxe accessories. But the whole family just looks so gosh darn cute -- can they wear bunads all the time?
See the happy family celebrating Norway... and note how much Milly Kakao looks like Bo Obama. Just saying.