Addendum to #FlatRichie’s 7th Leg

/ February 25, 2019

Remember I said last week that Tiny Clanger had some trouble with her photos? She was number 7 on the Flat Richie itinerary and hosted him before his current host. And while Tiny let us all know that he had arrived safely and she had had some fun with her, she wasn’t able to provide any picture proof until now. So here we go:

Tiny chose a little canvas bag with the character print as well as a few stickers. And the there is that cool Giz-on-a-stick booklet… Look at this:

Shrubbery! We want shrubberies!!!! 😂. Incidentally, I am the proud owner of a set of Giz-on-sticks as well, and I had great fun decorating my advent wreath with them. Well, temporarily. Mr Guylty was slightly unimpressed by my mixed medieval metaphors *coughs*.

Anyway, just to clarify – Flat Richie is currently already at his next stop – with Nordlicht in Germany. But we will hear about her choices, soon, too. Nordlicht mentioned “Tuesday” to me, so hopefully we’ll get another update tomorrow.

PS: Just saw Richard tweeting this:

Can someone explain to me why he is mentioning a raspberry here? 😳 I thought the raspberries are mock awards for the worst film/actor etc.? And Colman just won an Oscar for a fantastic turn in The Favourite. She was absolutely magnificent in that, so congrats and well-deserved for her Oscar. But a raspberry???? 😬Or was he referring to her god-awful acceptance speech? That was *definitely* raspberry-worthy, agreed 😂. Third option: He just wanted to be funny. 🙄 I wouldn’t put it beyond him, either…

Also, is anyone else getting suspicious re. his repeated tweeting for Olivia Colman? Nightingale, nightingale… could she be a future cast-mate for something that we don’t know anything about yet???

Related posts

123 thoughts on “Addendum to #FlatRichie’s 7th Leg”

  1. Raspberry is the term for that mouth action — sticking your tongue through your lips and blowing while flapping it. She blew a raspberry when she got the sign to wrap it up.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

        • Maybe it was all genuine. Otherwise it’s getting a bit lame. She put on the same shpiel at the BAFTAs. I was surprised to read that everybody looooooves her tearful and incoherent Oscar speech. When Gwyneth Paltrow did it way back in the late 90s, everybody was bashing her for it. Strange that Olivia Colman is generally applauded for an equally sentimental speech…

          Like

          Reply

              • I just find everything about her very constructed. Some people enjoy the constructions more than others, I suppose, but does anyone think any of it is real?

                Like

                Reply

                  • I think actors are people, too, and yes, I think that some behavior is real and it is frequently possible to discern it. I’d avoid either saying “it’s all real” or “nothing is real” — I really dislike that kind of black/white analysis and, for instance, if I thought nothing about Armitage were real, there’s no way I’d still be blogging about him. Paltrow, however, is much more than an actor — she’s a one-woman lifestyle industry. She exists as an advertisement for things she wants to sell. The vast majority of actors, even those we see regularly, are not in that category. Moreover, I think she’s been that way for a long time — she realized she’s not very smart but she has one talent and she decided to exploit it and figured out how.

                    Like

                    Reply

                  • I think Richard’s pretty real although I haven’t seen him (yet, fingers crossed double crossed) in public..
                    Paltrow puts her foot in her mouth a lot and IMO (underline it twice) I think the way she handled the whole “consciously uncoupling” fiasco in 2014 with Chris Martin was abominable. He did not deserve that. He’s the father of her children. Her Goop website has come under fire a lot as well.

                    Like

                    Reply

                    • Again, I neither know Paltrow well enough, nor am I at all interested in her. Richard real – to some degree. I have no doubt that the man is different when he is not in the public eye, though. Probably like any celebrity.

                      Like

            • Well I think Paltrow never should have won her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love. Kate should have won for Elizabeth although Meryl was good in One True Thing (movie was so so in my opinion) Kate got redeemed in Blue Jasmine but her performances as Elizabeth were fantastic IMO!

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

  2. Guylty, loved your alliteration by the way!! Always happy to read those!! She’s a great actress. I thought from his excerpt he tweeted she was very humble and honest and didn’t have anything prepared which made her to me more humble and honest..
    Giz on a stick!! I mean the visuals there!! Especially the last one on the right (my right) where his hands are that’s rather nice of you for a Monday start of the week so thank you!!!!!!

    Like

    Reply

  4. I think he genuinely likes her, as absolutely everyone seems to who has met her or worked with her. My neice, who is just starting out as a young actress, met her (they went to the same school right near me and she came back to present prizes a few years ago). She said she was wonderful, very warm and friendly and completely down to earth. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Oh really? Damn, I got a completely different impression from that podcast. I loved her as an actress and was quite taken aback when I heard her in that interview. She didn’t come across as very likeable to me.

      Like

      Reply

  6. Ach Mist, hätt ich doch nur nichts gesagt 🤫😳😉. Nun werd ich wohl drauf festgenagelt 🔨. Hab ich eigentlich gesagt, Dienstag welcher Woche 😜???

    Like

    Reply

  7. Love the stuff Tiny had chosen ❤ But the pic of Guy in the garden is hilarious XD
    p.s. and I did not like Olivia's speech. To me it's too much overacting; not at all natural. But that is just me. 😉

    Like

    Reply

    • The growing pains of Sir Guy 😉
      Yep, I agree. I thought she just put it on a little bit too much. I completely believed it when she did it at the BAFTAs. But a second time is just not as effective as the first time…

      Like

      Reply

            • Oh, das ist dann allerdings in der Tat eine etwas andere Aussage…
              Ihr kennt euch aber auch alle unheimlich gut mit Gwyneth Paltrow aus… Man könnte schon fast denken, ihr findet die gut… 😂

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              • If one follows any entertainment/celebrity news in the US at all, she’s unavoidable. Vagina egg, vaginal steaming, conscious uncoupling: all really effective marketing.

                Like

                Reply

                  • Nah Guylty, you’re not. Personally I think she puts her foot in her mouth a lot. The “conscious uncoupling” in 2014 esp since she and CM just celebrated 10 year anniversary in Dec ’13. was just mean of her. I don’t think CM wanted it and she did (Brad F maybe waiting in the wings there) so you’re not missing anything out with her IMO.

                    Like

                    Reply

                  • I think we’re only discussing this b/c of the comparison you raised to Olvia Colman’s acceptance speech — my point being basically that I think it’s a different thing when Gwyneth Paltrow does this as opposed to Colman. I don’t believe *anything* Paltrow does (an attitude supported, I think, by this article). To me, Colman was more plausible.

                    Like

                    Reply

                    • I think you made that point when we originally discussed Colman v. Paltrow. I understand that Paltrow is selling something whereas Colman is not. My point was that Colman’s lachrymose award acceptance shpiel looks a bit old at this point. I don’t quite buy it, that’s all, even though she is not selling anything.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • iirc you said it is inequitable to have criticized Paltrow for her performance of astonishment in the 90s and not to criticize Colman for the same thing; my point is that the performances are entirely differently animals, astonishment as the end result of the Weinstein sales machine (something she was totally on board with) vs astonishment in the face of a situation where an underdog movie gets a lot of awards (which may be repetitive, but at least responds to a real circumstance). My point is that these performances aren’t remotely the same thing.

                      Like

                    • This is not worth fighting about tbh. I have no problem with what you are saying, Servetus. Paltrow is a businesswoman trying to sell something. Colman is not. I have got it now.

                      Like

                    • I didn’t think we were fighting. I was trying to establish what the evidence was for particular assertions. I like to have facts. I’m sorry this bothered you.

                      Like

                    • Classic case of misunderstanding, Serv – I thought it bothered *you*.
                      All good here. As I said, your points about Paltrow are very valid, and I get that my comparison “limped” 😉 I’ll admit that I am just not very fond of Colman, either, that’s why I was snarky about everybody liking her acceptance speech in the first place.

                      Like

                    • I don’t have a strong opinion about Colman either way — I think this is the only thing I’ve seen her in, and imo it was a fantastic film and she was excellent in it. It pushed most of my buttons. (I also hated the film that won, so I was happy to see her at least get something out of it). I’d have liked Glenn Close to have won but not because I had a strong feeling about the film or the role. I also tend to be analytical about criticism of prominent women that’s related to their affect (or feigned affect)– some of them deserve it but some may not. If we just say “it’s all fake anyway” then we buy into the industry’s narrative of itself and end up disempowering ourselves as critics — so I like to know as much as I can.

                      Like

                    • To put the record straight – I like Colman very much as an actress. I thought she absolutely killed it in The Favourite, and I wanted her to win the Academy Award. (I admit, though, that I haven’t seen any of the other films whose female leads were up for the Oscar, too, so I am biased bordering on uninformed.)
                      You know, the whole “is it *all* fake” discussion is far more interesting imo than whether Paltrow is more fake than Colman. You made a fair point earlier on in the discussion that not all is fake about actors. Or if it was, then there would be no point in following Armitage, for instance. I agree. And yet I also think that what *we* (the public) see, is only one facet of Richard Armitage the man… and he *could* be playing an elaborate role for our benefit, too…

                      Like

      • My read on her is that she’s a talented mimic (according to her contemporaries, she barely finished high school) and very pretty, as well being the product of a very privileged family. Shakespeare in Love’s award love was a fluke — largely a product of the Weinstein machine. It projected her into prominence, though, and she realized in the course of all of that that she could get other people to buy things, so she started this lifestyle company that 100 percent reflects her inability to actually think about anything. (there was also the vaginal steaming episode). This interview to some extent supports my view. I think she’s using a lot of words that she’s heard other people say, just well enough to impress the reporter.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a reply to Michele Marsh Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.