Friday, February 25, 2011

"I don't appreciate you SlanderBeeking my name...."



This flippin made my week. Fer serious.

Here, let's play a word association game....

I say, "unicorn heads, rainbows, gunfire, muenster cheese, DAWSON, champagne, taxidermy and sexy awesomeness" and you'd say:

"One of Heather's really great dreams....but, like, AFTER a night of too much booze and mexican food and Cadbury eggs."

And I'd say "you're so close! It's my dream come true AND it's a new Ke$ha video."

And you'd say, "OH. Totally makes sense now."

Right????

Because I love this chick and I love her weird mind and I love the fact that they're creating a new video for her perfectly obnoxious song "Blow" and she's all, "ooh, we could get some dudes in tuxes wearing fake unicorn heads, and I could feed them champagne and lick their nostrils while dressed like Tina Turner, but maybe with better hair, and then we could totally get DAWSON Van Der Beek to show up and pose all James Bond like, and then we could BOTH rip our bras off from our clothes, and then we could fire RAINBOW GUNS at each other until he's dead and we can decapitate some unicorn dudes and in the end I mount DAWSON'S head on the wall! After I eat a tiny triangle of cheese!!!"

And her handlers are all, "yeah, that's pretty rad. What color should Dawson's bra be?"

I mean, how can you NOT love this exchange that takes place in the middle????


"Well....if it isn't James Van Der Douche."
"I don't appreciate you slanderBeeking my name, Ke-DOLLARSIGN-ha."
"Thank you for the snack, it was quite delicious."
"You're welcome."
"Was that....muenster cheese tickling my taste buds?"
"Of course. Muenster is like edible lactose gold."
"Agreed. Shall we dance?"
"Let's."

And then they shoot at each other with white plastic guns.

I mean, that's flippin cinematic genius. Seriously. And I totally want them to be a new couple. They have chemistry. It makes me like that cereal-box-headed has-been a little better once I see him making fun of himself and having fun with it.

I'm declaring this The Most Fabulous Video Ever Made. Well done Ke$ha. I knew I loved you for a reason.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

What Sports Illustrated does right.

Let's give credit where it's due: the dudes at Sports Illustrated "get it."

Cruised through a photo gallery of the last 21 years of SI swimsuit covers and with the POSSIBLE exception of Marissa Miller in 2008, there's not a bad choice in cover models for a solid two decades. And yes, once again I realize that Big Brother would take one glance at my browsing history here at work some days and think, "that's totally a 17 year-old dude trapped in a 30 year-old chick's body." Between the SI covers, the "Miley almost flashes her boobs in a see-thru dress!" headlines, the "Hot celebrities in bikinis!" sites and the occasional search for car parts or fast food menus, my web browsing habits would suggest I'm not doing a very good job at being either professional OR female.

But as for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit covers: they do a great job.

As a girl, I can give a complete thumbs-up.

They pick women who look like women.

Not plastic women, not little girl women. Sexy ladies. Ladies that, while not like anyone I regularly pass in the aisles of my local drugstore, seem like an ALMOST attainable ideal.....the version of us that might have a chance to make an appearance if we lived on a beach, ditched the bottle of wine at dinner and preferred cucumber and long runs at sunset to french fries and "Gold Rush: Alaska."

Ladies whom, it seems to me, most men should want to, um....Grocery Shop with, to coin my own new euphemism.

This year is a great example. We've got a model named Irina Shayk on the cover. Now, boobs of questionable natural origin and baby-daddy drama in the form of a World Cup girlie-man aside, there's not much about this woman that I immediately hate. She looks healthy! She looks natural! She has hips! Obviously she's in good shape, but she's not all gristle and chest bones and clavicles. There's a little meat on her upper arms. She's got beachy-looking hair and a pretty amazing face. She looks -- GASP -- human.

Now, I'm used to finding a zillion things to hate (fine: you could also read hate as envy, covet, whatever) about pictures of famous chicks in bikinis. Their patent lack of hip. Their disproportionately giant bolt-on racks. Enough space between their thighs to drive a battleship (not a euphemism). Complete absence of saddlebags. And though Ms Swimsuit Edition 2011 certainly isn't sporting cellulite or extra rolls under her ass (thips, I call them - that area between thigh and hip that carries all of my extra, um....foodstores for those long winters of hibernation or in case the world ends and we need to live off of our reserves.....), she looks like a hyper-sexy version of a REAL person.

Not jacked on surgery or lipo'd until she's got the proportions of a 12 year-old kid.

Well done, Sports Illustrated, for nailing 21 years of covers featuring women we'd ALL like to wake up in bed next to. Or Grocery Shop with.

Other favorites through the years: Bar Rafieli in 2009 (hips! more women with hips!) and Yamila Diaz-Rahi in 2002 (back before PhotoShop was so dramatically abused).

Keep it up, SI. The ladies like it, too.


Wednesday, February 9, 2011

(I think I get it.....is the sky falling????)

I hate myself for spending ANY time thinking about this, but.....I've figured it out:

I understand why the Kardashians are such media gold.

I know, I know - I wasn't going to so much as reference them, let alone dedicate entire paragraphs to my "aha!" moment, but then I figured - "screw it - how many times have I asked myself WHY these women are still snagging magazine covers? I owe my skepticism a little relief......"

We whine about the fact that they're "famous for nothing," but I think that's precisely WHY we can't look away. It's sort of like what would happen if one member of that gigantic family of girls we knew back in high school - those annoying, ditzy ones with big boobs and big hair and plenty of boyfriends and an easy spot on the cheer squad - ended up with a sex tape that led to a reality show that led to tons of magazine covers and red carpet appearances and spin-off shows and more magazine covers and product endorsements.....

It's sort of like they seem ALMOST normal enough we could picture OURSELVES or people we know in the exact same sort of magnifying glass - and because they broadcast every detail of their lives (every lactating, ovulating, weight-gaining, hair-coloring detail....), we feel like we KNOW them - and there's this sort of double whammy effect - they're somehow accessibly familiar in the first place, then we "really get to know them" via stupid articles where they interview REAL celebrities, and more radio morning show sound bytes, and all of sudden we realize precisely how they gained so much power.

It's because of people like me. People who LOATHE their ubiquity, but read the articles in spite of myself.

There was a moment today when I realized that Kim is now recognized by her first name alone. Huffington post had a story called "Kim Explains Weight Gain" and I knew immediately who they were referencing. What other Kim would be yapping about gaining 10 pounds while in New York? What other Kim would headline the entertainment section of a news site? What other Kim would be so arrogant as think we care about those 10 pounds?

Kardashian, of course.

Oh boy!

I mean, shoot - I'll admit - I've been suckered into visiting her "Shoe Dazzle" website where (as the sidebar ads suggest - ugh) you can "Dress like Kim!" ACTUALLY, it's not so much "dress like Kim" as it is a subscription service that sends you shoes and purses every month for a flat fee of 40 bucks and free shipping. So, basically, it's like the old record club, but with platform pumps and peep-toe booties. Their Jimmy Choo knockoff-esque purses aren't half bad, I'll admit....begrudgingly. Because it's the truth: these hags are consumer gold and for as much as I roll my eyes I'll still read the articles. Most of us do. Even if it's just to point an irate finger at the magazine and the computer screen while we shriek "DIE! JUST DIE ALREADY!" we're still participating in their Empire.

And when Mama Kris hits menopause and makes the rounds on The View and the Joy Behar show and appears on the Oprah Network to talk about "What to expect when you're going through The Change" she'll still probably net ratings and still snag a magazine cover and she'll continue to rake in money for The Empire.

Anyway - today's thesis, in a nutshell: We watch them BECAUSE they're famous for nothing. And somewhere, in the deepest reaches of our collectively fed up psyches, we're morbidly curious about "normal" people who become famous overnight - about the sisters who still fight and hit each other and compliment each others  boobs when they're looking particularly good and still borrow each others clothes without asking and still can't really find a boyfriend who will stick around. They struggle with weight gain and fertility issues and fix it all with retail therapy - so really, they're pretty much just like us.

(that sound you just heard was me tossing myself off of a cliff......)

I put myself through this Harper's Bazaar interview where the writer finds new and amazing ways to brown nose....which says to me that the industry knows she's worth enough money that they handle her with kid gloves and cower at the foot the the Throne Kardashian. Because putting her on the cover sells the magazine.

Here are some snippets....(I'd say "kill me now," but with that cliff maneuver, I'm already one dead puppy):

On consumerism: Kim is an avatar of American consumerism. "Once I tweeted, 'Oh my God, I just tried a Golden Oreo. I've never in my life had something so amazing,'" she remembers. "Then Oreo sent me crates of them. To my door." She amuses herself: "Hmm, I like Bentleys, flat-screen TVs, diamonds...." 

 On being easy to relate to:  But for all of this, Kim is not a brat—and, in her own way, is weirdly relatable. She tends to speak of herself and her sisters as one being. "We have the glitz and the glam, and people want to live vicariously through it. Personally, though, I'm the first to say I have to work out extra hard, and it's such a struggle for me to eat healthy. I have sister issues and parent issues and all sorts of things." 

On her mask of makeup: Today, Kim is in all black—sunglasses, saucy boots, her famous curves on display. But refreshingly, her face—so often covered with a counter's worth of product—is nearly makeup free. "I didn't have time to go home before this interview, and I was like, I have to go do my hair and makeup." She smiles with a level of bravado. "But I'm getting more comfortable not having a face full of makeup."

This is, quite literally, disarming. Under all of that product, Kim is a beautiful girl, her dark Armenian features a lesson in comely symmetry. So why so much spackle? "I do rely on having a full face on," she admits. "But I get that this"—she gestures to her face—"is more fashion. It's hard to let go. But then I think the glam can be my fashion. It's my own accessory." Like Lady Gaga and crazy shoes? "Yes! It's my crazy shoe."

On Botox and cosmetic surgery:  Kim tried Botox last year on the show. "All my friends had done it, and I was curious. But I saw such a change in what my face looked like. It didn't work for me. Someone told me yesterday that I needed it. That is so ridiculous." 

She fields plastic-surgery questions all the time. "Some people say, 'You've definitely had your nose done.' If I had, I would say, 'Here's the doctor, he's amazing, and I'll make the appointment for you.' Sometimes I'll see pictures that say I've had my nose done, and the before pic is after the after." She attributes the nose debate to her favorite makeup trick, contouring. "Someone saw me last night and my nose was so contoured. And they were like, 'You've had your nose done?' And I was like, 'No, wait until I wash my face.'"

Monday, February 7, 2011

Eminem will gospel-shame you into driving a Chrysler.



Well, I guess now I have to buy a Chrysler. I mean, I wasn't really in the market for new car, or an American car, or even a big, conservative, manly-looking car, but now that Eminem (er, I'm sorry - Chrysler?) has invoked history and "boot-strappiness" and images of angels and finally sucker-punched us with the ever-effective advertising power of a Detroit gospel choir and some theatrical finger-pointing....I guess I have to buy a new car.

Because after an estimated $12 million commercial spot and some extra millions in production expenses and a million or two for Eminem to appear and wag his finger at us with the power of angels and choirs to back him up the LEAST they stand to gain is my measly 20K or whatever they're charging for the big, black ManMobile, right? And to recoup that I guess they'd only need another 749 of us to apply that same logic. Ooh - I just looked up the price tag - my guess was pretty spot-on - they're starting at about $19,300. Hey, I'm good. I like my cars. I can guess what they charge for a reboot of the Sebring.

So - the commercial. My first thought was that they'd really created a pretty effective commercial. It was grandiose - it was emotionally stirring. It was at the same time both gritty and poetic. It made good use of the familiar "Lose Yourself" riff with which we all associate Sir Em. It finished with a very in-your-face plea - very "dude. I'm a rapper. I drive this car. You should drive this car. And you can forgive me for shilling for Brisk tea at the same because it means I'm making money through endorsements rather than big headlining tours, and that's all meant to protect my sobriety. Dude. So drive the damn Chrysler and be tough and recovered like me."

Honestly, 10 years ago if you'd told us Eminem would be bustin out the gospel choir guns to convince us a revamped, re-named Sebring is what sexy luxury is all about, we'd pretty much have laughed in your face.

But this is Eminem rebooted, too. Detroit's been to hell and back. Eminem's been to hell and back - why not spend a WHOLE LOT of money on the longest commercial in Super Bowl history to suggest that both Detroit and Eminem, after something of a hiatus, are both back and fabulous. The idea is sound.

But the imagery....the imagery was flat depressing.

Shots of a run down, frozen, industrial-looking Motor city spliced alongside clips of churches, steeples, statues suggested a definite undercurrent: God is on dirty Detroit's side. And since Eminem is their new badass mouthpiece, the logic would follow that God is on Eminem's side, too. Which is, again, an interesting comparison to draw, particularly when we think about how audacious that would have seemed just a few short years ago. So maybe, what we're left with after that commercial, is less any sense of urgency to Buy American and more a sense of "wow, Eminem sure has come a long way - and he's looking so skinny...."

I suspect, "Wow, that one car commercial where Eminem looked skinny was cool" is probably not the flavor Chrysler wanted to leave in our mouths.

There's a line about halfway through the commercial where the narrator says, of luxury, "it's as much about where it's from as who it's for."

PROBABLY also should have re-thought that line. Because to ponder that one makes us realize how true that statement really is - when a beauty product is from France we give it more credibility, assume it's better, more luxurious. When a handbag or a pair of boots comes from Italy, we assume it's of higher quality or -- yes -- more luxurious. Stereotype association. Which works when the stereotypes are glamorous.

Stereotype association with Detroit goes something like this: Unemployment, unemployment, cold, unemployment, cars, unemployment, 8 Mile, unemployment....something along those lines.

And suggesting that the "hottest fires make the strongest steel" really only serves to make Motor City, USA sound like a surly, calloused, unyielding, big, chilly chunk of metal that's been seriously burned. And surly chunks of metal don't really evoke luxury. Likewise, STEEL itself doesn't make me think "change," or adaptability or fluidity or resiliency. Or make me want to drive the car. In fact, the entire thing leaves me feeling chilly. Like I want hot chocolate. And maybe I'd like to drink that hot chocolate while letting Eminem drive me around for the afternoon. But then you'd be glad to get home, and let Em go on his way - because, sort of like that Chrysler, you might think about taking something notoriously, historically volatile out for a test spin and a cup of cocoa, but you don't take it home, long-term.

But, I think, few people will probably dissect the commercial to this extent. Instead, they'll spend the rest of the afternoon whistling that little bit about "mom's spaghetti" on his sweater and not quite remembering how the rest of the first verse of "Lose Yourself" went after all of these years.

Meaning mission to gospel-shame us into buying the re-named Sebring was NOT, QUITE EFFECTIVE. But it looked nice.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Women and film-making: the celluloid ceiling


This isn't exactly NEW news, but as I've been researching some stats on the issue of the gender disparity in behind-the-camera film-making roles, it's really begun to resonate with me - that the same statistics persist YEAR after YEAR after YEAR and that the issue gets so little media airtime is -- or should be -- shocking.

What's the issue?

When it comes to film, there's still a thick, bulletproof, shatter-resistant glass ceiling.

It's been deemed the "Celluloid Ceiling" by those in the industry. As soon as you step behind the camera, the ratio of men to women working in film is staggering. Let's look at some statistics:

According to an annual study titled "The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top 250 Films of 2010,”conducted by San Diego State University’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Films, "women make up more than 50 percent of the U.S. population but they made up a mere 7 percent of directors of major motion pictures in 2010...only 16 percent of all movie directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors in major films -- 1 percent below the 1998 figure and the same as it was in 2009."

An LA Times article about the same phenomenon summarized the situation by saying "A woman is more likely to hold a seat on a Fortune 500 company board (15%), serve as a member of the clergy (15%) or work as an aerospace engineer (10%) than she is to direct a Hollywood movie (7%)."

The persistence of this disparity is pretty startling as well. Women are simply not making inroads into film-making. In fact - to the opposite extreme, we're actually losing ground. Consider this statistic from the study: "the percentage of women directing major movies declined from 9 percent in 1998 to 7 percent in 2009 and 2010. Women comprised 2 percent of all cinematographers, 10 percent of all writers, 15 percent of all executive producers, 18 percent of all editors and 24 percent of all producers in 2010."

Following Kathryn Bigelow's 2010 Academy Award for her work directing "The Hurt Locker," there was some buzz in the industry about "The Bigelow Effect," optimistic that a watershed win for one woman would open doors for others languishing in obscurity. According to Martha Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, Bigelow's win "affected [her] career, but we're not at that point where there's a halo effect that reaches out to other women."

Put another way, Melissa Silverstein, who co-founded the Athena Film Festival to celebrate women's leadership in film chatted with the LA Times and observed that "if this were a Fortune 500 company and they looked at these statistics, they would have a diversity committee working on this immediately. How could you have a company in the 21st century and less than 10% of its leaders are women?"

Martha Lauzen said it beautifully in the same LA times article: "I don't think people know when they walk into a theater that nine out of 10 times they'll see a film by a male director It's not just an employment issue for women, it's a cultural one for all of us. Movies make a difference in how we see the world and how we see certain groups of people. These are the architects of our culture."

I got involved in a discussion on an article I found on the website "The Wrap" that dealt with the fact that the ceiling, in the movie-making industry, seems to be lifting higher and higher. It cited a handful of female directors such as Lisa Cholodenko, director of “The Kids Are All Right,” along with Nora Ephron, director of "Julie and Julia," "You've Got Mail," and "Sleepless in Seattle," and Sofia Coppola as women who have made films that were very well-received in Hollywood. But one commenter on the site said this:

"Maybe stop reporting on this same old superficial women in film story and start reporting more on qualified women directors. I saw this on twitter -- this article runs about the same time every year in newspapers. Look into Jessica Stover or Lena Dunham. Ones actually making good work or even innovating the business. Some are blatant in interviews about avoiding hollywood period because it's sexist -- where's that interview? Riding hood looks terrible not exactly a shining example neither was twilight. why not hire some of the more ballsy burgeoning female directors to write here even? the old guard is too entrenched in the system and the media is sexist at higher career levels. you have the choice on what you report and repeat -- I agree with [previous commenter]. writing about these films and directors would have more improvement than writing this same old story."

Something about that attitude didn't quite settle with me. I responded with this:

"On the one hand, I'm tempted to agree with you. Simply posting stats and bemoaning the numbers does little to create much awareness or instigate much change - BUT - on the flip side, a glut of stories about fantastic, cutting edge, and forward-thinking females in film-making would sort of feel like tossing a sheet over the very same stats - fact is, in "corporate Hollywood" there is still a huge gender disparity.

I'd love to read about successful women filmmakers as much as the next girl, but there's something to be said for bringing attention to the numbers game -- even if by rehashing statistics that haven't changed much -- that drives the point home: women aren't snagging those roles in the same proportion as men - and a handful of interesting pieces that glamorize the few who do still isn't going to shift the balance of power....."

This situation seems to me rather like a cancer, poisoning womens' fight for true equity in the workplace.

I love movies - I really, absolutely love them. I'd love to participate in making movies -- writing them, directing them, you name it - but to read anecdotes like this one from Catherine Hardwicke, director of the Twilight franchise, it could be a painful, uphill battle. Hardwicke wanted to direct the film "The Fighter," but  recounts the fact that she "couldn't get an interview even though [her] last movie made $400 million." In her words, "I was told it had to be directed by a man -- am I crazy? It's about action, it's about boxing, so a man has to direct it ... But they'll let a man direct "Sex in the City" or any girly movie you've ever heard of."


 I may pick this up again later and look at an interview with Martha Lauzen where she talks very candidly about some of these statistics.

For now, I'll stand firm in my resolve to recruit my sister and become the girl-version of the Coen brothers. We can do it.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

I've got skillz. With a Z.


So, uh, I have a wicked new talent.

Or, maybe not a NEW talent at all - maybe I was sliced outta the womb with this ridiculously under-appreciated, really, uselessly excellent skill. 

Someone should pretty much create a game show to showcase my wizardry - that's about the only way I figure I could ever get rich off of this. It would be a Spike or a USA or a JOE TV sort of game show - not that my skill is ENTIRELY "NSFW" but it's one of those tacky things that would be appreciated by bored single guys at a slightly higher rate than, say, the demographic that settles in for an evening of HGTV or Lifetime....Bravo maybe. Maybe I should pitch this to Bravo.

Anyway - about my Mad Skillz:

I know celebrity backsides.

Asses.

Show me a picture of a celebrity bum, I'll tell you to whom the bum belongs.

I'm right, like, 90% of the time. It's insane.

The gossip blog Agent Bedhead includes a mystery celebrity ass almost every day, so I can keep my talent polished. Sometimes they're so PhotoShopped it's hard to tell, BUT, in the cases where it's a candid photo of a real person not edited to high heck for use in a magazine - I can usually guess correctly.

How do I do it?

Well first off: I'm exceptionally gifted. Own that first and the rest shall follow. So, aside from straight-up God-given talent, I have a handful of criteria that work pretty well to help me narrow it down. First - I spend LOTS of time on celebrity gossip cites honing my familiarity with the various bumps, bulges and curves of plenty of chicks presently in the limelight (I haven't tried out this trick with any dude-celebrities....but I think I could tell my Matt Damon from my Jon Hamm if pressed).

ALSO - context plays a huge role in figuring out who's curves belong to whom. For instance - if it's a teeny tiny skimpy bikini on a girl with no hips, I narrow my knowledge of girls with no hips who like to show themselves off (perhaps due to a recent weight loss) and come up with a handful of possibles. Then I take skin tone into account. Is it a fair-skinned, no-hipped attention whore or a golden-skinned, tiny-hipped bikini babe? That narrows the field considerably.  Finally, we've got a skinny person in tiny clothes - are they toned, or are they just a no-eater? This helps, too. There are plenty of skinny celebs who just have very little fat because they're afraid of so much as a latte. But then there are the running-on-the-beach-o-philes; they'll have perkier backsides and less cellulite.

How about WHAT they're wearing? If it's not a bikini - is it a mini-dress that screams "Me! Look at me!" or something a little more "hiding out, avoiding cameras" or "dashing into Whole Foods" appropriate? Or, have I seen something that looks like that backside before - but from the front? 

Combine all of these and my odds are pretty good.

Here's a sample of recently "yep! I was right!" predictions:

/\ Halle Berry /\
Process of elimination went something like this: she's fit, she's curvy, she's got a waist and golden skin and isn't rocking some sort of 20 year-old starlet lace tights and boots with her cutoffs. So she has taste. And she knows she looks good enough in just a tee-shirt and cutoffs that she doesn't need to dress it up. Who's a golden-skinned grown-up who would look good in a paper bag and has enviable curves? Halle Berry! CORRECT.


/\ Jessica Biel /\
This one was surprisingly easy. Who has one of the notoriously nicest backsides in Hollywood? Who's in great shape with terrific legs and not much for waist and hips? Who's fair skinned, so NOT seen out on the beach often? Who has bad taste in clothes and therefore probably bad taste in swimsuits? Aha. And I was right.

/\ Katy Perry /\
Sorry - another easy one. Who likes to wear tight plastic outfits and would be lame enough to wear a glorified Wonder Bread bag on stage?

/\ Leighton Meester /\
Here I had to default to "where have I seen something hideous and lacy and sheer recently and WHO was wearing it?" Who's desperate for attention, young enough not to know better, misguided enough to think this is high-fashion and ill-advised enough to wear it out of the house? Why Leighton, of course. It's hard work trying to upstage Blake Lively!

/\ LeeAnn Rimes /\
This was my example from earlier. No-hipped, fair-skinned, bony blonde with linebacker shoulders who obviously likes to exercise and wants to show it all off. Our favorite Twitter hog, Mrs Eddie Cibrian.

/\ Lindsay Lohan /\
The leggings gave her away. All I needed were the leggings and boots and knew who we were dealing with. Extra tip-offs: long fried hair and ugly jacket - she's rarely seen without a cropped jacket and giant purse these days...

/\ Megan Fox /\
She has lumps! I wasn't expecting lumps! But this one was pretty easy, also. Megan is constantly bragging about her tiny waist, she's got the long, thick, dark hair, and I could see a piece of tattoo on her arm. The lumpiness had me doubting myself, but my first guess was correct - it's the (not so) Fox.

/\ Miranda Kerr /\
This looked like a snippet from a Victoria's secret catalog - add dark hair and we're probably dealing with either Miranda Kerr or Alessandra Ambrosio. I'm HIGHLY envious of (and therefore startlingly familiar with) Alessandra's lower half, and this ain't it That leaves Miranda as the likely culprit. CORRECT!

/\ Olivia Wilde /\
I thought I remembered seeing Olivia Wilde wearing a drab olive bikini awhile back. And I know she's not particularly tanned, and not particularly hourglass-esque, so this seemed likely. Bingo!

Oh - and that one at the top? Vanessa Hudgens.

See - I'm good! And you're jealous! Or you're embarrassed that you were just caught looking at these at work! Or you wonder if you have what it takes to beat me at my own game show!

You don't.

In case you were wondering.

This is my claim to fame. For now.