Q&A: Disappointing Actresses, Mixed-Up Hunks, Subtitled Crickets
Wednesday, May 22, 2013 at 12:49PM And now the return of the 'Ask Nathaniel/Q&A' series wherein you asked me questions and I pick two handfuls to answer.
Disposable project on the line for Emily. Yes, another one.DAVID: Which actresses filmographies are you most disappointed in? I'm thinking in terms of actresses you admire and think are incredibly talented, but, for whatever reason, end up working in subpar films.
NATHANIEL: I think the popular answer here is Rachel McAdams but aside from Mean Girls I've never cared too much. The answer that came immediately to mind was Emily Blunt. It’s not that she’s making terrible films per se, it’s just that given how Oscar worthy she was in that plum comic part in Devil Wears Prada seven long years ago, and then how sexy she was in that blink and you’ll miss her bit in Charlie Wilson’s War soon thereafter, I expected her career to explode in the way, say, Carey Mulligan’s did post An Education or at least for her to be more direct competition for Anne Hathaway. I wonder why Blunt isn’t either in more demand or more interested in challenging herself. Maybe it's just bad luck. She seems to be working exclusively in indies that don't crossover, mainstream films that are quickly forgotten or headlining gigs which don't really work in some crucial way (Young Victoria, Adjustment Bureau). I’d love to see her really challenged either by a role or by an auteur. Will Into the Woods bring a happily ever after to that heat-losing career?
The second choice is Evan Rachel Wood who seemed to chuck what looked like incredible range and promise to the side for a long procession of Very Bad Girls. This was, in no small part thanks to her inarguable electricity in Thirteen (2003) but when you play variations on one theme too often you either become a superstar or people lose interest. I thought she was good in Ides of March (2011) but it isn't what she needed. What she needs is a total about face role.
JOHN T: The last foreign language film to clear $20 million was Pan's Labyrinth, almost seven years ago. What do you think it would take for a foreign language film to catch on in that way again?
Amy Adams, Oscar Tragedies, and a Beefcake Triple after the jump...
NATHANIEL: This is one of the big underreported stories of the cinema. It's been a steady and easily traceable decline for foreign film "blockbusters". I blame the explosion of viewing options (including more TV than we've ever had in the history of mankind) and the shortening of theatrical windows for less adventurous viewing by audiences. I used to mock people who were all lazy like "i'll wait for video" but since that often feels like "next week!" now (after the interminable wait for theatrical after festivals of course) it's easier and easier to get complacent and subtitled pictures have always needed more time to catch on. Without that time...
South Korea is "hot" in cinema... but it doesn't usually translate to box officeSo now I try to celebrate when a subtitled picture hits a measly 1 million in US revenue. That's the new threshhold wherein I try to pretend that EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT THEM to dry the tears. So I get excited for the occasional Farewell My Queen ($1,348,000) and thrilled for the likes of Amour ($6,800,000) and Volver ($12,900,000) -- and please note that I'm rounding up on the grosses -- but bummed for the far more regular cases like Reprise ($555,000) where a startling good film will win raves and fans but never cross some sort of intangible interest/awareness hurdle. The bext example of this is probably the fate of South Korean films in the current marketplace. It's tough to argue that that country isn't "hot" right now in terms of cinema but other than The Host ($2,200,000) they get stuck on their way to that magic $1 million mark even when people are talking about them. Consider: Oldboy ($708,000), Mother ($551,000), Thirst ($318,000), Poetry ($356,000), The Housemaid ($157,000). Maybe the audience just isn't there for foreign arthouse anymore?
What it's going to take is a shift in taste -- if all things are cyclable there will eventually be a time period where Americans are interested in things besides superheroes and reality and competition tv again - and maybe a foreign film offering something new-feeling even if it's just an old (but still exotic to Americans) form presented superbly... like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon 12 years back.
MARK: I think Amy Adams is destined to join the Kerr/Close/Ritter club of 6 Oscar noms and 0 wins. Thoughts?
NATHANIEL: I would have thought this was a crazy notion just a year and a half ago but since she keeps getting nominated whether she’s statue worthy (Junebug, The Fighter) fine but unexciting (Doubt) or 'damn I wish a more fascinating actress had had a crack at this role' (The Master) it’s clear that they’ll nominate her for just about anything… besides hilarious Disney Princess mimicry that is. She doesn't even seem to have to do that much pleading of her case (witness her checked-out / non-efforts in those THR roundtables wherein the other actresses are really laying on the charm). If she doesn’t win soon an Oscar is probably out of the question (given Oscar's love of The New) and the real hurdle now will be getting people exciting about her work each time now that it's expected that she'll be good and in worthy movies. Being reliable is different than keeping people interested in seeing you glorified on an annual shortlist.
3RTFUL: Does our valuing of awards add a layer of tragedy to the fate of actresses who never receive them?
NATHANIEL: This is a totally interesting question and one I’m ashamed to say I haven’t really considered. I’ve always said that Great Work is its own Reward…. And a better award than a gold statue certainly. I mean I’m thrilled that Tilda Swinton has an Oscar but it’s not like that career would be any less amazing had that year’s supporting actress category gone in one of four other directions (which it might easily have given the precursor indecision that year). But maybe the collective obsession with awards does add tragic undertones. I mean by any reasonable judge of acting careers, 80s queens Close, Winger, Weaver, Pfeiffer and Turner for example are lottery winners and extremely successful women. That they never won Oscars feels like tragedy… but only for the overly dramatic actressexual who loves them and maybe for the women themselves (provided that they really wanted one... which I suspect at least two of them truly did). I bring up the 80s women so much, not because I am so connected to the 80s (though I am) but because I would maybe argue that that decade's crop of Major Actresses has the least correlation of any decade's crop to eventual Oscar Winners.
On the other hand, being frequently cited as a loser can add a layer of "too good for the room" awesomeness to your career. Nobody thinks of Barbara Stanwyck or Alfred Hitchcock as tragic Hollywood careers, you know?
 |
 |
i swiped these from the futurist
They think of them as giants that Oscar was too dumb to embrace! Some legends of the craft become bludgeons used against the Academy's reputation.
MIKA: Not a question. I would like to see more coverage on Jessica Chastain and Kate Winslet and frankly less of Nicole.
NATHANIEL: Not an answer. What has Kate Winslet done for us lately? P.S. I’d happily talk up Chastain more but we’re inbetween movies (a rarity!) with that busy one.
TOMBEET: On what you said about the confusion of screenplay category in Oscar, would you think it's better/ more appropriate if the Academy (and other awards) splits it into 3 categories: Best Original Screenplay, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Screenplay Based on Actual Events?
NATHANIEL: No. Two is enough categories for any one piece of filmmaking’s big puzzle – except acting (four categories is fine there). But if its truly about creating from your own mind (original!) versus creating from pre-existing stuff, maybe true stories and biopics and the like should be considered “adapted”… I mean they’re way more “adapted” than Richard Linklater’s Before Midnight will ever be. I am uncomfortable with the automatic categorization of sequels as Adapted unless they’re the type of sequel that seems to be operating under the Same Thing Only Different Setting / Same Thing only Bigger directive like, oh, The Hangover movies.
SKYFLY Are the Extra Categories with Best Scenes and Best Cameos etc dead? 2010 was the last time you did them and they were one of my favourite parts of Film Bitch Awards.
NATHANIEL: They are not dead. I’m just slow. I will try to finish 2012 before my June 2013 vacation. So punctual!
Who would you cast to play AVA GARDNER in a biopic?
TYLER: No one lived a more biopic-worthy life than Ava Gardner. If we can have 10000 biopics on Marilyn and Liz, can't we have just one on Ava? Who would you cast to play her?
NATHANIEL: co-sign! An Ava Gardner biopic would be such a cool project… well, “cool” for the overly familiar biopic genre of course. The problem with biopics of iconic film actors is they are usually iconic because they were so damn unique. I though Kate Beckinsale was a complete wash as Ava in The Aviator. But really no one on the scene looks enough like her (not that that stops the endless procession of actresses doing "Marilyn"). How about we get into a time machine and give Gina Gershon the Ava Gardner biopic in the 1990s? Who's with me?
JULIANNE MOORE: Why am I thriving in my fifties. It seems to go unnoticed.
NATHANIEL: Define thriving. I mean you keep making these video on demand movies. But yes you still look like a gazillion dollars. But it’s been a long time since you had a director worthy of your gift. Pitch something to Haynes or Anderson!
PJ: This may be my unique problem, but I always have difficulty telling Channing Tatum, Chris Evans & Chris Pine apart. Of course I can differentiate them eventually, what I meant was that at any immediate moment I saw their faces I always have to pause for 5 seconds and the three names flashed across my mind before I eventually call out the right name. It doesn't help that they are at similar age, have similar names (all start with C, two even named Chris) & similar film choices (leading a superhero / sci-fi franchise with some rom-com in between). Question: Do you have similar problem with any group of actors / actresses where you always mix them up and can't tell them apart immediately?
NATHANIEL: This is a horrible insult to Channing Tatum! It shall not stand. Especially not after Magic Mike. Though how great would it have been had Chris Evans joined him on the stage. (You can keep Chris Pine). But this used to happen to me with the Dylan/Dermot Mulroney/McDermott continuum. But only because of their D.M. 2 Syllable/3 Syllable names I think. It also happens to me with Alison Brie and Brie Larson but, again, only in terms of accidentally calling them the wrong names. They don't look alike to me. It's not something I experience often with movie actors but I’ll admit that I frequently find television shows bewildering as to who is who largely because of the unexplored unreported but quite obvious TV habit of filling entire casts with actors of the same age range, hair color, and hair style and then dressing them all alike to. (I still get confused about which guy was which on Veronica Mars and I'm sensing I might have that problem with Agents of SHIELD)
And that's a wrap for this week's column. As ever I'd love to hear your thoughts on these questions, too.
Reader Comments (55)
Considering their reactons shots, I would answer Turner and Weaver.
Weaver does not play the hollywood game hence her losses and snubs when she was more than worthy esp 97's the ice storm snub with all respect to julianne,weaver was THE best supporting actress of that year and should have been her 2nd after 1988 working girl.
Emily Blunt should have the career surge that Anne Hathaway's enjoying right now. She's the better actress, anyways.
Mark -- nah. my vote for Best in Show goes to Christina Ricci in that same film (though there's no topping Julianne for Best Supporting Actress of 1997. I'd given her the win for Best of Decade too (give or take Judy Davis in Husbands & Wives)
Lord knows Julianne Moore had a low period after her double nomination, but I felt like her Ford/Cholodenko films indicated a big comeback. What Maisie Knew gave her a solid role, and we'll see if she is wonderful in Carrie. She may have floundered for a few years, but she's on her way to securing Grand Dame status imo. (I mean, Sarandon did some shitty films before hitting that realm. I see her as comparable.)