Javits glances around. There’s a man in dark glasses drinking a fruit juice. He seems oblivious to his surroundings and is staring out to sea as if he were somewhere far from there. He’s smartly dressed and good-looking, with greying hair. He was one of the first to arrive and must know who Javits is, and yet he’s made no effort to come and introduce himself. It was brave of him to sit there alone like that. Being alone in Cannes is anathema; it means that no one is interested in you, that you’re unimportant or don’t know anyone.

He envies that man, who probably doesn’t fit the list of ‘normal’ behaviour he always keeps in his pocket. He seems so independent and free; if Javits weren’t feeling so tired, he would really like to talk to him.

He turns to one of his ‘friends’.

‘What does being normal mean?’

‘Is your conscience troubling you? Have you done something you shouldn’t have?’

Javits has clearly asked the wrong question of the wrong man. His companion will perhaps assume that he’s regretting what he’s made of his life and that he wants to start anew, but that isn’t it at all. And if he does have regrets, it’s too late to begin again; he knows the rules of the game.

‘I asked you what being normal means?’

One of the ‘friends’ looks bewildered. The other keeps surveying the tent, watching people come and go.

‘Living like someone who lacks all ambition,’ the first ‘friend’ says at last.

The ‘friend’ laughs.

‘You should make a film on the subject,’ he says.

‘Not again,’ Javits thinks. ‘They have no idea. They’re with me all the time, but they still don’t understand what I do. I don’t make films.’

All films start out in the mind of a so-called producer. He’s read a book, say, or had a brilliant idea while driving along the freeways of Los Angeles (which is really a large suburb in search of a city). Unfortunately, he’s alone, both in the car and in his desire to transform that brilliant idea into something that can be seen on the screen.

He finds out if the film rights to the book are still available. If the response is negative, he goes in search of another product – after all, more than 60,000 books are published each year in the United States alone. If the response is positive, he phones the author and makes the lowest possible offer, which is usually accepted because it’s not only actors and actresses who like to be associated with the dream machine. Every author feels more important when his or her words are transformed into images.

They arrange to have lunch. The producer says that the book is ‘a work of art and highly cinematographic’ and that the writer is ‘a genius deserving of recognition’. The writer explains that he spent five years working on the book and asks to be allowed to help in the writing of the script. ‘No, really, you shouldn’t do that, it’s an entirely different medium,’ comes the reply, ‘but I know you’ll love the result.’ Then he adds: ‘The film will be totally true to the book,’ which, as both of them know, is a complete and utter lie.

The writer decides that he should agree to the conditions, promising himself that next time will be different. He accepts. The producer now says that they have to interest one of the big studios because they need financial backing for the project. He names a few stars he claims to have lined up for the lead roles – which is another complete and utter lie, but one that is always wheeled out and always works as a seduction technique. He buys what is known as an ‘option’, that is, he pays around $10,000 dollars to retain the rights for three years. And then what happens? ‘Then we’ll pay ten times that amount and you’ll have a right to 2% of the net profits.’ That’s the financial part of the conversation over with, because the writer is convinced he’ll earn a fortune from his slice of the profits.

If he were to ask around, he’d soon find out that the Hollywood accountants somehow manage it so that no film ever makes a profit.

Lunch ends with the producer handing the writer a huge contract and asking if he could possibly sign it now, so that the studio will know that the product is definitely theirs. With his eyes fixed on that (non-existent) percentage and on the possibility of seeing his name in lights (which won’t happen either, at most there’ll be a line in the credits, saying: ‘based on the book by…’), the writer signs the contract without giving the matter much thought.

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, and there is nothing new under the sun, as Solomon said more than three thousand years ago.

The producer starts knocking on the doors of various studios. He’s known in the industry already, and so some of those doors open, but his proposal is not always accepted. In that case, he doesn’t even bother to ring up the author and invite him to lunch again, he just writes him a letter saying that, despite his enthusiasm for the project, the movie industry isn’t yet ready for that kind of story and he’s returning the contract (which he, of course, did not sign).

If the proposal is accepted, the producer then goes to the lowest and least well-paid person in the hierarchy: the screen writer, the person who will spend days, weeks and months writing and re-writing the original idea or the screen adaptation. The scripts are sent to the producer (but never to the author), who, out of habit, automatically rejects the first draft, knowing that the screen writer can always do better. More weeks and months of coffee and insomnia for the bright young talent (or old hack – there are no halfway houses) who rewrites each scene, which are then rejected or reshaped by the producer (and the screen writer thinks: ‘If he can write so damn well, why doesn’t he write the whole thing?’ Then he remembers his salary and goes quietly back to his computer.)

Finally, the script is almost ready. At this point, the producer draws up a list of demands: the removal of any political references that might upset a more conservative audience; more kissing, because women like that kind of thing; a story with a beginning, middle and an end, and a hero who moves everyone to tears with his self-sacrifice and devotion; and one character who loses a loved one at the start of the film and finds him or her again at the end. In fact, most film scripts can be summed up very briefly as: Man loves woman. Man loses woman. Man gets woman back. Ninety per cent of all films are variations on that same theme.

Films that break this rule have to be very violent to make up for it, or have loads of crowd-pleasing special effects. And since this tried and tested formula is a sure-fire winner, why take any unnecessary risks?

Armed with what he considers to be a well-written story, who does the producer seek out next? The studio who financed the project. The studio, however, has a long line of films to place in the ever-diminishing number of cinemas around the world. They ask him to wait a little or to find an independent distributor, first making sure that the producer signs another gigantic contract (which even takes into account exclusive rights ‘outside of Planet Earth’), taking full responsibility for all money spent.

‘And that’s where people like me come in!’ The independent distributor can walk down the street without being recognised, although at media-fests like this everyone knows who he is. He’s the person who didn’t come up with the idea, didn’t work on the script and didn’t invest a cent.

Javits is the intermediary – the distributor!

He receives the producer in a tiny office (the big plane, the house with the swimming pool, the invitations to parties all over the world are purely for his enjoyment – the producer doesn’t even merit a mineral water). He takes the DVD home with him. He watches the first five minutes. If he likes it, he watches to the end, but this only happens with one out of every hundred new films he’s given. Then he spends ten cents on a phone call and tells the producer to come back on a certain date and at a certain time.

‘We’ll sign,’ he says, as if he were doing the producer a big favour. ‘I’ll distribute the film.’

The producer tries to negotiate. He wants to know how many cinemas in how many countries and under what conditions. These, however, are pointless questions because he knows what the distributor will say: ‘That depends on the reactions we get at the pre-launch screenings.’ The product is shown to selected audiences from all social classes, people specially chosen by market research companies. The results are analysed by professionals. If the results are positive, another ten cents gets spent on a phone call, and, the following day, Javits hands the producer three copies of yet another vast contract. The producer asks to be given time for his lawyer to read it. Javits says he has nothing against him doing that, but he needs to finalise that season’s programme now and can’t guarantee that by the time the producer gets back to him he won’t have selected another film.

The producer reads only the clause that tells him how much he’s going to earn. He’s pleased with what he sees and so he signs. He doesn’t want to miss this opportunity.

Years have passed since he sat down with the writer to discuss making a film of his book and he’s quite forgotten that he is now in exactly the same situation.

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity, and there is nothing new under the sun, as Solomon said more than three thousand years ago.

Gli acciai inox o inossidabili sono leghe a base di ferro che uniscono insieme le caratteristiche meccaniche degli acciai e alcune specifiche caratteristiche di resistenza alla corrosione. In questo senso infatti, il termine italiano inossidabile non è del tutto corretto, poiché queste leghe sono invece estremamente ossidabili.

Ciò significa che esse hanno la possibilità di passivarsi, ovvero di ricoprirsi di uno strato di ossidi invisibili che protegge il metallo sottostante dagli attacchi corrosivi.
Lâ??acciaio inox è quindi il nome dato a un tipo di acciai ad alto contenuto di cromo, che grazie a questa caratteristica non arrugginiscono se esposti ad acqua ed aria. Sono una classe molto importante di acciai, usati in innumerevoli applicazioni. Infatti oggigiorno sono molto diffusi sia complementi d’arredo in acciaio inox che macchinari o nel campo delle costruzioni.

La scoperta di questo tipo di acciai si deve a Harry Brearly, che mentre stava sperimentando vari tipi di leghe per le canne dei fucili, notò che un tipo di acciaio con una certa percentuale di cromo non si arrugginiva se esposto allâ??atmosfera. Successivamente questa proprietà venne spiegata con la passivazione del cromo, che forma sulla superficie una pellicola di ossido estremamente sottile, continua e stabile. I successivi progressi della metallurgia fra gli anni ’40 e ’60 hanno ampliato il loro sviluppo e le loro applicazioni. Tuttora vengono perfezionati e adattati alle richieste dei vari settori industriali, come il petrolifero/petrolchimico, minerario, energetico, nucleare ed alimentare.

Negli anni si sono anche sviluppate nuove tecnologie produttive che, utilizzando i processi di saldatura acciaio inox e lavorazione lamiera per saldare i tubi in acciaio inox di sua produzione, rendono possibile immettere sul mercato un prodotto di altissima qualità. E â?? grazie alla tecnologia della saldatura in alta frequenza che nel tubo in acciaio inox, la zona termicamente alterata e come noto la più sensibile ai fenomeni di corrosione, eâ?? stata ridotta di sezione e quindi, a parità di lega impiegata, offre una minore propensione allâ??ossidazione superficiale.

Lâ??acciaio inox eâ?? tuttora perfezionato ed adattato alle richieste dei vari settori industriali come petrolifero, petrolchimico, minerario, energetico, nucleare, alimentare senza tralasciare le costruzioni. Molti macchinari sono costruiti con parti in acciaio, dai tubi alle lamiere ai carrelli in acciaio inox.
Da oltre 70 anni lâ??acciaio inox eâ?? impiegato per il rivestimento esterno degli edifici.

Grazie ai progressi nella tecnologia di lavorazione e finitura dellâ??acciaio inox, oggi gli architetti dispongono di una vasta gamma di acciai inox di altissima qualità ed elevata resistenza. Questo anche grazie alle caratteristiche dellâ??acciaio, un materiale estremamente duttile, flessibile che si adatta facilmente ad ogni scopo. E che inoltre può essere riciclato e riutilizzato un numero infinite di volte rendendolo un materiale importantissimo per il futuro e per unâ??economia sostenibile.

Mentre allâ??estero lâ??impiego di acciaio inox nel rivestimento delle facciate degli edifici eâ?? abbastanza comune, in Italia lâ??utilizzo dellâ??acciaio inox risulta più limitato.

A cura di Martina Meneghetti
Prima Posizione Srl – Agenzie marketing promozione

How We Hold our Body and Body Language

“By identifying with a persons bodily expression one can sense its meaning.”
~Alexander Lowen
Bioenergetics (1975, p.101)

Imagine you are at a costume party where everyone is silent. You are having fun dancing to the insane beat of the music, entrenched in an internal musical adventure. Suddenly someone knocks into you from the back. You whirl around to see who it is, and a smile comes to your face. It is your best friend, but how did you know? Your friend was in a costume and said nothing. Could the way that your friend held their body give away so much information that you were able to tell? In retrospect all you may be able to answer is that you just knew that it was your friend. I believe the reason you knew it was your friend was the way your friend was holding their body. Your friends posture gave off enough information for you to be able to identify them. There is a lot of information that we display about ourselves through how our bodies our held.

In this paper I plan on highlighting the importance of noticing and paying attention to the structure of how people hold their bodies. I am first going to give an overview of how we can develop patterns of how we hold our body, how the patterns can show up, and how to begin to gain the information displayed through bodies consciously.

Patterns of holding in our bodies can often times come into existence from repressions of emotions exiting for periods of time. For example, think of how you would hold yourself if you were sad or afraid, or felt unsafe. Act these out in your body, and notice how your body begins to take on a certain shape. From the specific shape your body took on other parts of your body might then need to compensate to hold the new alignment. For instance, if you hold your head down as if you are depressed it will add weight forward, and in turn to remain balanced you may need to pull your abdomen forward (Kurtz, & Prestera, 1976, p.10). If these emotions existed and were repressed you might continue to act out a version of it in your body until it was released. Sometimes the holding taken on can exist for such a long time that the emotion associated with the holding can leave consciousness. Although the feeling of the emotion may have left consciousness the holding of it in your body and unconscious will remain (Lowen, 1975, p.102). Over time several of these holding patterns regardless how large can begin to show up in how someone holds themselves as a fundamental part of how they exist and are seen in the world.

The patterns can also affect the person’s experience of the world. For example, if someone has chronically pulled their shoulders forward around their chest, this will add pressure to the neck that can be alleviated by pulling the head forward. In this way their experience in the world is shifted. Due to shifting their head forward their view of the world will literally be different. In addition, they will be using more energy than necessary to retain the altered posture. They may use terms like they are “sticking their neck out” or they may be “leading with their head rather than their heart”. Patterns of holding are shaped by experience and can in turn shape experience.

In looking for patterns there are certain chunks of information that are useful to focus on. The image of a person can be divided into five major areas: The face, the chest (including breath rate), the shoulders, the arms, the legs, and the abdomen. Within those areas, it is also useful to notice if there are any differences between the right and left half, and the upper and lower half dividing at the waist (Marrone, 1990, p.101). It is useful to do both to look at the person as a whole, and in relation to the areas focused on. Both can give useful information.

In reflecting on these areas it is useful to notice how the areas are held in relation to the question; if the individuals posture were perfect how would it be held? This way we can easily pick out the differences and quickly see the areas that may be where holding patterns are occurring. Once a difference is picked out it can often be useful to note the location and associated function of that location of the body. For instance in the example where the shoulders curl to protect the heart, we may note that the heart is often referred to as the seat of emotion. This may allude to the body acting out and the person protecting their emotions.

At this point it is very important to point out that any information we gain without consulting the experience of the individual we can only deem as a guess and the truth of our guess we should be completely willing to discard in the presence of the truth of the individuals experience. It is also important to not work from these assumptions without checking either the individuals willingness to proceed with our guess, or checking with the individuals available internal experience to verify the accuracy of your guess.

With that said another method where we can gain information is by using sequence: Take the scan of the person’s body and how it is held. Once this scan is complete place your body in the same posture with the same holding patterns. If you are in a scenario where a dramatic body shift on your part is difficult you can use your imagination. This can simply be done by vividly imagining your body in the other posture, see yourself as that person is. Notice yourself breathing at the same rate and imagine how it would be to go through experiences this way. Notice how you are interacting with the world differently. Notice how situations are different, and notice how different your experiences and body feels. Notice what may be causing these differences in relation to the different way you are holding yourself. Both ways are great methods to also gain rapport with the individual (Brooks, 1989, p.135-141). Both methods can be done as they may elucidate different pieces of information.

Research done by Nina Bull as described in Body of Knowledge (1990, p.71) supports the notion that putting our body in certain postures will encourage associated emotions to the postures to come forth. After some practice this whole technique can be done in about thirty seconds. Some ways to further your competency with the above methods is to practice the same time as you are walking down the street. Do the methods with each person you pass by. Another way to further your competency is while you are sitting in a place with other people you may find it fun to begin to practice holding yourself similarly as other people and to listen in on the way they express themselves. You may begin to notice correlations in the way they hold and verbally express themselves.

The information and techniques presented in this paper are useful when meeting someone initially to calibrate with their state, to gain initial information as to how they may be experiencing. In addition paying attention to the bodily information and having an initial baseline, it will then be easier to notice and pick up on shifts that may happen throughout an interaction.

References:

Brooks, Michael. (1989). Instant Rapport. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc.

Kurtz, Ron & Prestera, Hector. (1976). The Body Reveals. New York, NY: Harper & Row/Quicksilver Books.

Lowen, Alexander. (1975). Bioenergetics. New York, NY: Coward, MC Cann & Geoghegan, Inc.

Marrone, Robert. (1990). Body of Knowledge an Introduction to Body/Mind Psychotherapy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Copyright – 2009 Kerry Goldstein, MA
Kerry Goldstein MA, is a counselor practicing in Portland Oregon
http://closertoself.com
http://counselinginoregon.com

“The better the dog, the busier you have to keep him.”

That was the advice a dog trainer, of all people, gave Christoph Waltz, the Vienna-born actor who won the top acting prize at Cannes for his role as the eerily deliberate Col. Hans Landa in “Inglourious Basterds.”

Now he’s keeping busy. Very busy. Sporting a beard for his new role as the villain in “The Green Hornet,” the 53-year-old actor is co-starring in a major studio film and fielding offers for everything from star parts to A-list parties.

He appears somewhat bemused to be invited to events and roundtables with the likes of Nicolas Cage and Morgan Freeman, but his confidence in his own skill is apparent.

“I’m arrogant and blase enough to consider myself a very good dog,” he jokes, while admitting that the long time it has taken him to achieve this level of recognition may have chafed. “You take pride in what you’re doing, in your craft, and all of that, but — I wouldn’t say I resigned myself to mediocrity, not at all, but I started to accept that there might be an ideal you strive for (and) never realize.”

Now he’s found that ideal with Landa. It was a piece of casting that director Quentin Tarantino considered so essential for his film that he was almost ready to give up on the whole project, having spent more than $1 million of his own money to develop it, after weeks of failing to find the right actor. Then Waltz walked in and Tarantino knew he could make his movie.

“I consider myself one of very few who get the chance to have that experience,” Waltz says. “(But) it would be completely presumptuous, or, in a way, childish, or rather infantile to expect that could happen again and again.”

Being born into a family of theater professionals has helped him keep things in perspective. Waltz’s parents worked as set designers, and he also had grandparents and even great-grandparents who were involved in the performing arts. After studying acting in Vienna at the University of Music and Performing Arts, he learned Lee Strasberg’s method-acting techniques, living in New York in the late 1970s, before returning to Europe, where he established a stage career and worked extensively in television, netting several awards for his work.

“The one advantage of having grown up in the business is that you don’t romanticize it,” he says. “‘Oh, isn’t it wonderful?’ Blah, blah, blah. No, it isn’t! I’ve never romanticized it.”

Does that put him in the minority in Los Angeles? He laughs. “Perhaps. But on the other hand, the conviction, the dedication that you see here, is tremendous. It would be awful if the whole business consisted of grouchy farts like me.”

Waltz seems devoid of delusions about his own grandeur. “I know what I can contribute,” he says. “And that’s a very limited, very specific unit, whether it’s a big movie, a small movie, a German movie, an American movie. That’s the advantage I have over a 25-year-old. I’ve had the chance to understand what it is I do.”

Now he’s doing it on “The Green Hornet.”

“It’s fun,” he says. “It’s a lot of special effects and it’s terribly interesting because these people are so adept and so professional and so skillful. (Writer-star) Seth Rogen is such a lovely man, such a smart and funny person. His ideas are bubbling out constantly, and his (writing) partner Evan Goldberg translates them onto the page as they bubble about. And, most of all, (director) Michel Gondry (is) a very interesting, quite eccentric, quirky character with fabulous ideas. How his mind works is really, really fascinating.”

Waltz is relishing the other new opportunities “Basterds” has brought about.

“It opens doors I didn’t even know existed. All interesting directors end up here, and I’d be thrilled to work with the greats. I’m a great Tim Burton fan and an admirer of Martin Scorsese. This is how different my interests are.”

Thanks to the richness of Landa’s character, those directors probably have him on their list of actors to watch. Luckily for Waltz, he isn’t simply fielding offers to play SS men.

“Nobody’s talking about that. I get interest coming my way from many different directions. I’d hate to pigeon-hole myself. The variety is what’s interesting.”

No, he says, he won’t be playing any more Nazis. But he does hope to make more Hollywood films. “In Europe, everybody would say, ‘Well, they just want to squeeze you like a lemon.’ Well, yeah! But, you know, if I have the juice, why shouldn’t they?”

Watch Inglorious Basterds Streaming Online Free Now!

Sunno S880 boasts the king of Sunno smart phone – the first smart phone to own dual operation systems: both windows mobile 6.5 and android OS. Those Smart Phone fans who were regretting that they cann’t own these two OS on one phone now can utter a sigh of relief.

View this Sunno S880 WIFI Phone at:

http://www.szprice.com/products/Sunno-S880-WIFI-GPS-Smart-Phone-with-Windows-Miobile-6-5-and-Android-Dual-System_1478.html

Armed with Hisilicon K3 460Mhz high frequency CPU, Suuno S880 assure you surfing on line with high speed and smooth operation! WIFI wireless Internet access allows you to surf the wireless network worldwide. Built-in GPS navigation system can enure you ultra-fast positioning and navigation! And our sunno phone can support almost 18 kinds of language; no matter where you are, we’d like you can enjoy yourself with our phone.
Contact with us ASAP, get your best deals now !

Attention: Sunno S880 will be available in December. PLS preorder to get special price and special gifts from us.

Hotspot:
Operating system: Windows Mobile 6.5/Android dual system
CPU: Hisilicon K3 460Mhz
GPS: Support built-in sirf star III navigation chip
WiFi Support
Memory: 256M/128M,supports extend up to16G memory card, Document management
Camera: 8.0MP,auto focus, flashlight

Features:
Frequency: 850/900/1800/1900MHZ
Language: English,French,German,Greek,Finnish,Italian,Swedish,Spanish,Dutch,Norwegia
n, Danish, Czech, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Korean
LCD size: WVGA 800*480; 3.6″super wide screen, multi-touch support
Operating system: Windows Mobile6.5/Android dual system
CPU: HisiliconK3 460Mhz
GPS: Support built-in sirf starIII navigation chip
WiFi Support
Memory: 256M/128M,supports extend up to 16G memory card, Document management
Camera: 8.0MP,auto focus, flashlight
Music support music of many format(MP3/MP4/WAV/WMA)and to play at background,
speed and pause
Video: 3GP,MP4,AVI,ASF,WMV,RM,support video of almost all formats and to play in full screen, speed
Support FM radio
Data Transfer: wifi, USB/bluetooth, U disk(under third-party software)
Telephone: 100000 groups, unlimited telephone directory, can record more than 20 items directories
Games built-in PPC games, can download thousands of PPC 3D games, JAVA 3D unlimited download, games simulator
More information: Skype, MSN, My cool, Office soft wares and other PPC soft wares

As Valentine’s Day approaches and love and romance is in the air, we thought it would be fun to take a look back at the top 10 stylish couples we wish were still together. 

1. Who: Kate Moss and Johnny Depp

When: 1994 – 1998.
Signature style: The king and queen of grunge.

Why we loved them: He was Hollywood’s bad boy actor, she was one of the world’s top supermodels and a British grunge princess. Together their A-list pairing was dynamite and they were the world’s coolest couple. Ever, some would say. Depp may have had high profile romances with Jennifer Grey, Winona Ryder and Twin Peaks star Sherilyn Fenn before falling for French imp Vanessa Paradis, but it’s his relationship with Moss that does it for us. They just looked so freaking good together. They both remain icons, just not together. Shame. 

2. Who: Vincent Gallo and Chloë Sevigny

When: 2003 – 2005.
Signature style: Effortlessly cool.

Why we loved them: America’s reigning indie film queen met the actor, director and singer when he cast her in the lead role of his 2003 art house film The Brown Bunny, in which he starred as well as directed. The controversial flick saw the pair embark on a promotional tour of the film looking dishevelled and glamorous in Cannes and achingly cool everywhere else. A fashion maverick who lent instant style kudos to anything she wore, and an edgy, artistic and regally handsome director, they made up America’s coolest couple. Both are still revered for their non-conformist approach to fashion and film, fondness for art house flicks and being risk takers. They were a match made in relationship heaven. 

3. Who: SJP and RDJ

When: 1984 – 1991.
Signature style: ‘80s kids done good.

Why we loved them: Way before the role of Sex And The City’s Carrie Bradshaw turned Sarah Jessica Parker into a style icon, she was a scrawny ‘80s kid with a bubble perm and acid wash jeans. In 1984 she met 19-year-old party boy Robert Downey Jr and they enjoyed a seven-year romance in their yoof. They may not have been the glossy, sleek and groomed stars that we know today, but that’s why we loved them so. Sweet. 

4. Who: Brad Pitt and Gwyneth Paltrow

When: 1995 – 1997.
Signature style: Hollywood blondes.

Why we loved them: They were the all-American Hollywood couple, all chiselled cheekbones, glacial blue eyes and icy blonde tresses. They looked so similar we kinda saw them as a male and female version of each other. Both were actors on the up who fell in love on set. They seemed so young, happy and carefree, before macrobiotic diets, strict fitness regimes, the pressures of parenthood and taking life too seriously took over. Bring them back, we say. 

5. Who: Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet

When: 1985 – 1993.
Signature style: Bohemian.

Why we loved them: These two are cool with a capital ‘C’. Lisa Bonet was the sultry and hip big sister from the Cosby Show that every girl looked up to. Lenny Kravitz was a rising rock god bringing a breath of fresh air to a music scene saturated with bland pop and hairspray rock. In 1985 Kravitz left LA to pursue his musical career in New York, where he met Bonet backstage at a New Edition concert. They married in 1988, had a daughter and then sadly divorced in 1993, amid rumours of an affair with Madonna (Kravitz wrote her single Justify My Love). They were the ultimate cool couple.

The 5 Most Stylish Men of the Past 50 Years

How Do Second Time Around Relationships Work?
 
Copyright reserved by discountuggsale.com

As Valentine’s Day approaches and love and romance is in the air, we thought it would be fun to take a look back at the top 10 stylish couples we wish were still together.

1. Who: Kate Moss and Johnny Depp

When: 1994 – 1998.
Signature style: The king and queen of grunge.

Why we loved them: He was Hollywood’s bad boy actor, she was one of the world’s top supermodels and a British grunge princess. Together their A-list pairing was dynamite and they were the world’s coolest couple. Ever, some would say. Depp may have had high profile romances with Jennifer Grey, Winona Ryder and Twin Peaks star Sherilyn Fenn before falling for French imp Vanessa Paradis, but it’s his relationship with Moss that does it for us. They just looked so freaking good together. They both remain icons, just not together. Shame.

2. Who: Vincent Gallo and Chloë Sevigny

When: 2003 – 2005.
Signature style: Effortlessly cool.

Why we loved them: America’s reigning indie film queen met the actor, director and singer when he cast her in the lead role of his 2003 art house film The Brown Bunny, in which he starred as well as directed. The controversial flick saw the pair embark on a promotional tour of the film looking dishevelled and glamorous in Cannes and achingly cool everywhere else. A fashion maverick who lent instant style kudos to anything she wore, and an edgy, artistic and regally handsome director, they made up America’s coolest couple. Both are still revered for their non-conformist approach to fashion and film, fondness for art house flicks and being risk takers. They were a match made in relationship heaven.

3. Who: SJP and RDJ
When: 1984 – 1991.
Signature style: ‘80s kids done good.

Why we loved them: Way before the role of Sex And The City’s Carrie Bradshaw turned Sarah Jessica Parker into a style icon, she was a scrawny ‘80s kid with a bubble perm and acid wash jeans. In 1984 she met 19-year-old party boy Robert Downey Jr and they enjoyed a seven-year romance in their yoof. They may not have been the glossy, sleek and groomed stars that we know today, but that’s why we loved them so. Sweet.

4. Who: Brad Pitt and Gwyneth Paltrow

When: 1995 – 1997.
Signature style: Hollywood blondes.

Why we loved them: They were the all-American Hollywood couple, all chiselled cheekbones, glacial blue eyes and icy blonde tresses. They looked so similar we kinda saw them as a male and female version of each other. Both were actors on the up who fell in love on set. They seemed so young, happy and carefree, before macrobiotic diets, strict fitness regimes, the pressures of parenthood and taking life too seriously took over. Bring them back, we say.

5. Who: Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet

When: 1985 – 1993.
Signature style: Bohemian.

Why we loved them: These two are cool with a capital ‘C’. Lisa Bonet was the sultry and hip big sister from the Cosby Show that every girl looked up to. Lenny Kravitz was a rising rock god bringing a breath of fresh air to a music scene saturated with bland pop and hairspray rock. In 1985 Kravitz left LA to pursue his musical career in New York, where he met Bonet backstage at a New Edition concert. They married in 1988, had a daughter and then sadly divorced in 1993, amid rumours of an affair with Madonna (Kravitz wrote her single Justify My Love). They were the ultimate cool couple.

The 5 Most Stylish Men of the Past 50 Years

How Do Second Time Around Relationships Work?

Copyright reserved by discountuggsale.com.