Archive for the Celebrities Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

I guess Johnny Depp doesn’t want us to like him anymore

Posted in Celebrities, Movies, Reviews with tags , , , , , , on May 15, 2012 by Sarah

Johnny Depp is my #1 Fantasy Crush, my first Fantasy Husband, and one of the few actors I will see in anything. I’m a big fan and a massive apologist and I own both of those things, but now, even I can’t deny that Depp’s prolonged midlife crisis is really bumming me out. I had my come-to-Jesus moment with The Depp during Dark Shadows, the latest in his eccentro-quirktastic partnership with Tim Burton. That movie is…not good. It’s not completely repellant—as is always the case with Burton the production design is insane and it’s a gorgeous film to look at. And the acting isn’t bad, either. Depp is very committed and even quite good as time-displaced vampire Barnabas Collins. The problems come largely from the script, which is bereft of character development and the humor is caught somewhere between too broad for camp and too weird for mainstream appeal. There’s a lost, meandering quality to Dark Shadows—there’s no there there.

Which is why I checked out on watching the movie and started wondering what’s been going on with Depp over the last decade. Obviously, he’s having some kind of personal crisis, but his career is flailing in a strange way, too. Strange because it’s not like he doesn’t make money. Even the terrible Tourist did well, thanks to international box office. And Pirates of the Caribbean: Give Us Your Gold rejuvenated that franchise. But there’s been a downward tick in the non-Disney movies lately. The Rum Diary did not do well, Rango—which is actually good—also underperformed, and now Dark Shadows is losing money. It’s looking like, unless he’s being Jack Sparrow, people are over Depp (does not bode well for next summer’s mega-budgeted The Lone Ranger). Depp built up his career through the 1990’s with deeply weird roles, often directed by Burton, making his name as the beautiful young man who would not be bound by his face. He was The Outsider. He was the Generation X James Dean. So what has happened?

I think, to an extent, there was an expectation that with mainstream success would come mainstream conformity. Compare Depp to his contemporary, Robert Downey, Jr. RDJ overcame significant personal demons and revived his career in the mid 2000’s, emerging as major box office in 2008 in Iron Man. RDJ is a weird dude himself, but it’s like, once he got his shit under control for the last time, he pulled together a reasonable facsimile of a working leading man and though he wears odd suits and makes questionable footwear choices, RDJ’s quirk does not get in the way of his commercial interests. His eccentricity is an enhancement, not a hindrance. It’s—Oh that RDJ, always with the purple glasses and the sneakers, but isn’t he so sexy and charming and great? (YES, HE IS.) Meanwhile, Depp’s eccentricity is slowly strangling his public persona under the weight of all those chains and bandanas. It’s become a liability. Because Depp isn’t really conforming to what we think he should be at this stage.

And maybe that’s fair. The man is nearly fifty and he’s dressing and acting exactly like he did twenty years ago. There’s some arrested development happening that is unappealing. But here’s where I’ll defend Depp, my last line of defense on his behalf. I have always said that Depp is a deeply weird dude. Hollywood is anxious to replicate him, to announce “the new Johnny Depp”. The problem with that is that to date, no young actor has been remotely close to as genuinely weird as Depp. We think he’s getting too old for his schtick but what if it’s not schtick? What if he really is just that bizarre?

Depp’s past decade has not been without merit. People have taken to discussing his (and by extension, Burton’s) last ten years like it’s a vast wasteland of shitty work. It’s not. Finding Neverland, Sweeney Todd (a Burton collaboration), and Public Enemies are all solid-to-good movies. He turned in above-average voice work for The Corpse Bride (another Burton flick) and Rango. And though the public may not want to buy what he’s selling, The Rum Diary, Dark Shadows, and The Lone Ranger are all passion projects. He’s doing the work he wants, regardless of the public reception. That two of those movies happen to be big-budget tent poles is beside the point. It does make me wonder, though, if he was using his Disney money and public good will to make little artsy indies like he did in the 1990’s, if we’d even be having this conversation. I strongly suspect a lot of the critical ire aimed at Depp recently has more to do with what people see as a squandering of his talent on kitschy mainstream projects than any real objection to the number of necklaces he’s wearing.

Johnny Depp is engaged in an unusual conversation with his audience. As the public shouts “you’re getting too old for this” and “tone it down”, Depp continues barreling down his oddball path, doing what he wants, making the movies he wants, regardless of whether or not the audience will be there for him. That’s the rebel spirit of filmmaking, man (said in Dennis Hopper’s voice). That he’s doing it with massive studio projects is actually kind of…funny. Increasingly, it seems like he doesn’t want us to like him, wants us to take him off the pedestal Captain Jack put him on. He’s burning through public good will like he really doesn’t care (again, does not bode well for The Lone Ranger). All that remains is to see what the final outcome is, if the box office of the Pirates franchise can continue to justify giving him hundreds of millions to make his next pet project, or if Depp will retreat to the Land of the Peculiar Things and lick his wounds with a low-budget movie about a man whose eyes are made of razor blades.

1 Comment »

Happy First Annual Male Objectification Day!

Posted in Celebrities, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on April 4, 2012 by Sarah

Because men aren’t the only ones who can be pervy. We like to look, too. And turnabout is fair play. So I asked for your suggestions and added in some of my favorites and here we have it, the first ever celebration of the Female Gaze, Cinesnark style. And for the three dudes reading this—um, fun?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

20 Comments »

The film and television industry is making me a feminazi

Posted in Celebrities, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on April 3, 2012 by Sarah

And I really don’t want to be one. I consider myself a feminist in that I am a woman who thinks that women should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with themselves and have equal access/opportunity as men. But I don’t like getting militant about it, because that’s usually when people start writing you off as a nut and rolling their eyes and generally tuning you out. But sometimes, no matter how hard I try to keep an even keel, eventually the effect of a hundred slings and arrows reaches the point that there’s nothing left but the Boudicean rage of a thousand years of repression and oppression. On that note, let’s talk about Vanity Fair.

Sexism AND racism – it’s a two-for-one deal!

Vanity Fair takes a lot of shit for being a super whitebread publication that has several annual issues pertaining to the entertainment industry and then failing to reflect the ever-increasing diversity of those entertainments. Put simply: They always put white chicks on their cover with a token woman of color thrown into the background on the inside flap. Today VF has released their May issue, which is dedicated to the “Ladies of TV”, and they put a not-white person (Modern Family’s Sofia Vergara) on the cover…and then stripped her down and stuck her between the sheets. Overall, this VF cover shoot is very…booby. The ladies on the cover—Vergara is joined by Juliana Margulies (The Good Wife), Claire Danes (Homeland) and Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey)—are tucked into sheets with cleavage busting out, or, in Dockery’s case, bare back exposed. The inside cover fold-out is an equally egregious offense—a collection of women posed in vintage-inspired lingerie, boobs out.

Giving credit where it’s due, this is one of the most diverse spreads VF has done in recent memory, which isn’t really saying much, but let’s take progress where we get it. Besides Vergara on the cover, the fold-out includes Kerry Washington (her new show Scandal begins in April), Archie Panjabi (The Good Wife) and Grace Park (Hawaii Five-0). We’ve also got some positive body-image stuff happening with the deliciously voluptuous Kat Dennings—I’ve never been a huge fan of hers, but GODDAMN her body is crazy—and the normal-sized Emily Deschanel (Bones), plus proud curvy girl Vergara. And the ages are fairly well represented. Dockery is the youngest cover girl at 31—Margulies and Vergara are both over 40—and only three of the seven women featured on the fold-out are twenty-somethings: Dennings, Revenge’s Emily VanCamp and Shameless’ Emmy Rossum. So, yes, progress. There is SOME diversity in color, age and body type.

But is it enough?

I might not be so sensitive to this except we’re just coming off the appallingly racist reaction to casting decisions in The Hunger Games and the issue of how progressive we really are is on my mind. There’s something I heard about the movie Hitch once that has stuck with me and the VF cover calls it to mind. Hitch was developed as a vehicle for Will Smith, and in the initial casting cycle they auditioned several well-known leading ladies who happened to be white (Hitch, if you haven’t seen it, is a romantic comedy, albeit a pretty terrible one). Then someone decided that America wasn’t really ready for an interracial rom-com, but they also worried that white audiences wouldn’t support the movie if Smith was partnered with a black actress (I am dying on the inside, writing this out). The compromise? Enter Eve Mendes, a Latina actress. This was seen as “the answer” to the interracial “problem”—dark enough to “match” Smith but still light enough to qualify as “interracial”. I don’t even know which part of this offends me the most. Literally years later and I still can’t process that this happened in the twenty-first century. But the VF cover reminds me of the Hitch thing. I don’t know that Vergara’s inclusion on the cover over, say, Taraji Henson, who is the female lead on the popular new Person of Interest, is a Hitch-like compromise, but knowing the decision has been made at least once before, I can’t shake the nagging suspicion.

And what of Melissa McCarthy, Oscar nominee and Emmy winner for her CBS sitcom Mike & Molly? That’s an awful show that I wish would cease to exist on principle, but you can’t argue that this has been McCarthy’s year, between the success of Bridesmaids and her Emmy win. And now she’s producing, too, developing pilots and getting them to network. Why not put McCarthy on your cover? She’s a long-time television presence—Suki!—who has turned into a burgeoning power player. She was the first—and most obvious—exclusion I noticed when I looked the spread over. I thought, How can they not include Melissa McCarthy, who is the new queen of TV comedy? And then I thought, Oh yeah, because she’s a big girl and this is a lingerie shoot. Note to the VF editors: When an actress is having the kind of year McCarthy has had, you can’t ignore her, and if including her means you have to scrap your objectifying lingerie-themed photoshoot, YOU SCRAP THE OBJECTIFYING LINGERIE-THEMED PHOTOSHOOT.

Which brings us to the ogling.

This year in entertainment belongs to the female ass-kicker. This is the year we met Katniss Everdeen in the flesh—in ALL her glorious flesh, which we’ll get to—the year that Bella Swan finally does something approaching useful, the year that fairy-tale princesses put down the goddamn singing sparrows and take up arms, and that women on TV are some of the best schemers and politickers around, thanks to Revenge and Game of Thrones, and I have high hopes for Washington’s Scandal. So why then is the theme of VF’s TV issue “scantily clad eye candy”? Why not put them all in varying styles of armor, give them swords and shields, and stage it like a motherfucking uprising of amazing? Because the message here, as always, is that women can go so far before they must be sent back to the boudoir, because that’s the real domain of women. And if you think I’m being oversensitive, I want you to ask yourself what a similar cover shoot for men might look like. Unless it’s all the hottest dudes on TV doing this, then no, I’m not being oversensitive.

Your Body is Bad, and other lessons we need to un-learn

Before we get into the quagmire of double standards and learned body dysmorphia that surrounds The Hunger Games star Jennifer Lawrence, I want you to read the following statement, and then repeat it back to yourself, out loud. I’m deadly serious—say this back to yourself, OUT LOUD. Go into the bathroom, your dorm room, your car, whatever, and look in a mirror and tell yourself the following:

There is no wrong way to be a woman. There is no wrong way to be me. This (point at yourself, for real) is right and worthy.

I talk a lot of shit about celebrities, most of them women. I’ll pick apart clothing and style choices, I’ll photo-assume the state of someone’s relationship based on one candid photo, I’ll judge a person’s worth in the arena of public opinion based on which designer she wears to the Oscars. I accept that all that means I’m a shitty person with a heart made of spiders and turpentine. But one thing I won’t do is criticize a woman—or anyone—for something she can’t help. That’s why excessive plastic surgery makes me so sad-mad—women slicing their faces into oblivion to meet some arbitrary (and let’s face it, probably male-determined) standard of beauty is infuriating. You are the way you are, and while there are certain parameters that can be adjusted, everyone has their basic shape and reality. And there is nothing wrong with that. There’s no wrong way to be a woman, to be yourself, and we’re each right and worthy in our own ways.

So the mere idea that the “fatness of Katniss” is a thing makes me BREATHE FIRE.

From the moment Jennifer Lawrence was cast as Katniss Everdeen, there was discussion about whether or not she was the right choice, as there always is whenever a beloved literary character is brought to the big screen. And yes, I do remember people questioning whether or not Lawrence could accurately portray a character with a history of malnourishment, but one who also runs and jumps and shoots things and whose physical prowess as a hunter has kept her family alive. To me, yes, Lawrence embodied that Katniss. She was strong and athletic and capable—when she shot a bow and arrow you believed she could really handle that weapon. But her tiny waist and long limbs also suggested a willowy-ness, a hint of vulnerability under the steel. And speaking of Lawrence as a person, she’s GORGEOUS. She has an insane body that is all the more beautiful because it isn’t the Hollywood norm. She’s tall and has breasts and hips and an ass and thighs and it’s beautiful. She looks like a real person.

So far, it seems like Lawrence is handling the criticism of her body well, supposedly laughing it off and pointing out the double-standard that her equally fit male co-stars, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth, are not being criticized for appearing too “well fed”. But the larger issue is what this is telling the girls out there who look up to Katniss and see in Lawrence that having jiggly bits is not only acceptable but also sexy and beautiful. The “fatness of Katniss” tells girls that while too thin is a problem so is strong. Because this isn’t about being overweight or childhood obesity, this is about a young woman with a very fit, athletic body that happens to be bigger than an A-cup being judged as too fat. Jennifer Lawrence is not a stick insect but she is far, far from fat. And I resent the implication that she—that anyone with her body type—is too fat. I resent it on behalf of the tall girl who slouches down, the short girl who wears platforms every day, the thin girl who binge eats and the plump one that purges.

So what’s the lesson today? That you can’t be too thin but you also can’t have any curves and the pinnacle of female empowerment is on par with being trussed up in lingerie and posed, boobs out, to be gazed upon as an object of desire. And too bad if your skin is dark, you’re still an also-ran and we’re deigning to acknowledge you.

Fuck that noise.

There is no wrong way to be a woman. There is no wrong way to be me. This is right and worthy.

25 Comments »

Best & Worst of the 2012 Academy Awards

Posted in Celebrities, Event, Movies, TV with tags , , , on February 27, 2012 by Sarah

I kept lamenting throughout the night that no one was cutting to Benedict Cumberbatch during the Oscars, but it turns out, he wasn’t there. He was at Elton John’s viewing party, which lets the telecast director off the hook—though not for also failing to keep a camera on Colin Firth as he walked out on stage—but then it leads me to wonder why a man who was in two nominated films, one of them a Best Picture candidate, and who is one of the hottest things happening in town right now, wasn’t there. Seating at the Kodak Theater is dicey—it’s not as big as a venue that hosts the Oscars should be and tickets are competitive even for nominated parties—but you would think someone could make room for Cumberbatch. Anywho.

The fashion was the most interesting aspect of the show, as Billy Crystal and his writing staff kept things pretty tame and the theme of the night was apparently “please go to the theater before they all close”. Between the unnecessarily nostalgic tone and the fact that the average viewer at home hadn’t seen two-thirds of the nominated movies, it made for a boring telecast. So let’s do what we do best and judge people we don’t know based solely on what they wore for one night out of their life.

Best Dressed

I actually squealed out loud when I saw The Office and Bridesmaids star Ellie Kemper in this Armani Prive gown. The color is a dead match for her pale complexion and dark auburn hair, the gown is gorgeous, the fit is stellar, the styling is superb. Here’s how good she looks—I don’t hate her barrel-rolled bangs! This was the most flawless look of the night for me. I would not change one single thing about how she looks right here.

A close second is Michelle Williams in Louis Vuitton. I’m not the biggest Williams fan—I’m always glad for a chance to mock her and her second virginity. But I loved this red/orange LV dress. I don’t even mind the peplum! I think I could do without it—if I could change one thing about this look I would abandon the peplum. But it doesn’t ruin the look for me. Besides, Michelle is much too precious to show us her bum in a fitted gown. Oh see, there you go. I can’t help myself.

Worst Dressed

It pains me to put Sandra Bullock on this list, but her Marchesa gown is awful. It doesn’t fit, the stitching around her hips is unflattering, and WTF was happening with her face. Either her ponytail was too tight (the classic Croydon facelift) or she’s hit the Botox recently. Also, her nose. What is going on with her nose. We speculated during the show that she’d had a (bad) nose job. We should NEVER be speculating that Sandra Bullock has had a nose job.

Also hurting me last night was Viola Davis in emerald green Vera Wang. I love the color her on her. Davis has such gorgeous skin and this dress makes her glow, and I’m down with her au natural hair, but I loathe the bodice on this dress. Davis has the distressing tendency to show us more of her boobs than I particularly care to see. They’re nice and everything, but I don’t need to see them. I think I could handle the skirt of this dress if the bodice was simpler. As it is, there’s too much going on and the level of exposure is distasteful.

Almost But Not Quite

I’ve got four of these this year, so let’s run them down quickly. First up, Gwyneth Paltrow in white Tom Ford. I love the gown in and of itself, I ADORE the cuff, and I’m indifferent to the cape. I like the cape in theory, and ten years ago, when G was still owning her “I’m a bitch and I’m better than you” thing, I would’ve loved this without question. But the G who writes cookbooks and blathers on about healthy living and mommyhood? She can’t quite carry off the cape.

Next up, Jessica Chastain in Alexander McQueen. I’m totally into her styling and the black/gold color combination. I’m into the cut of the dress. I’m not crazy about how much like Las Vegas brothel curtains it looks, or about how it’s fitting Chastain’s chest. The first thing I noticed when I saw this dress was how it was pinching Chastain’s underarms and gaping across her boobs. The poor tailoring is holding it back.

Which brings us to Rooney Mara in Givenchy. I am also down with her styling—especially the makeup which combines her now-trademark red lips with a softer overall effect—and I like the dress, in and of itself. Hate the fit. The top is too loose and even on flat-chested Mara it looks saggy and no one with Mara’s physique should ever look saggy.

And finally, we have Bridesmaids and Damages star Rose Byrne in Vivienne Westwood. The fit here is excellent, the back is particularly interesting, but SHE IS SO THIN IT HURTS ME. Everyone was going on about how skinny Angelina looked, but for my money, I’m more concerned about the rapidly vanishing Rose Byrne. Eat something!

The Funny Ladies – Good

Here’s how you do a peplum: Tina Fey’s custom Carolina Herrera navy trumpet gown with peplum. The architectural quality of the dress, the proportions, the way the flare of the peplum echoes the flare of the skirt—it all works. And Fey looks gorgeous, even if I don’t quite understand what’s happening with her hair.

Also rocking a good look is The Descendants’ Judy Greer in Monique Lhuillier. Greer looks sexy—the red hair is very flattering—and glamorous, and the black and silver gown is a perfect choice for someone in a nominated film, but who is not nominated herself. I love Greer. She can do no wrong.

The Funny Ladies – Bad

Ugh, Kristen Wiig, you’re killing me. In and of itself, I like Wiig’s J. Mendel gown. But Wiig has worn neutral/nude A LOT this award season, and her loose, beachy hairstyle feels out of date when the style has clearly moved toward more structured, finished looks. Wiig has been missing the mark consistently this year.

Maya Rudolph in Johanna Johnson is another miss. Rudolph, too, has been failing to impress this season, though this is one of the less offensive dresses she’s worn. However—BOOB SHELF. Anything that gives you a boob shelf is a bad idea.

Danger! Curves Ahead

Octavia Spencer’s sunburst Tadashi Shoji gown is how a curvy lady dresses. The pattern is flattering, the cut is excellent, the tailoring is superb. Spencer looks amazing. This is how you do if you’re working with more than a size two.

Melissa McCarthy in Marina Rinaldi, however, is how you don’t do. I like the color of the dress, and the shape, but I hate the neckline and the sleeves. Imagine this dress without the jeweled yoke collar and just a regular halter cut, and replace the sleeves with an embroidered bolero. See? Better, right? I will give McCarthy props for fabulous makeup and hair—she looked really pretty, but the dress did not do her justice.

Dressing Your Age – Grande Dames

Meryl Streep wore gold Lanvin and it was the exact same shade as the Oscar she won. This isn’t the greatest dress I’ve ever seen, but given that Streep is just as likely to show up in a men’s shirt and taffeta skirt as she is in a proper-styled gown, I’m down with her look. The color was particularly flattering, setting off her fantastic skin. I really need someone to ask her what she’s doing to keep her skin looking so amazing.

Another lady of a certain age who is likely to wear something totally bizarre is Glenn Close, who chose a deep teal Zac Posen number. I love it, but I bet a lot of you hate it. I love the detailing on the corset, and on the fishtail, and I LOVE that she wore a tuxedo jacket over it. I have an awesome tuxedo vest, but have been on the lookout for a good tuxedo jacket. I want Glenn Close’s.

Dressing Your Age – Little Women

On the other end of the spectrum, we have Shailene Woodley in a long-sleeved Valentino. Again, I love this but I bet a lot of you hate it. The thing is, Woodley is young and off-beat  and genuinely doesn’t care to a degree that allows her to get away with wearing some of the more oddball fashions. And the styling is beautiful.

Not scoring as well but still getting points for trying is Emma Stone in Giambattista Valli. The central problem with this dress is that it is far too close to Nicole Kidman’s famous 2007 Balenciaga dress. But the secondary issue is that neck/shoulder bows are pretty much never a good idea. Kidman barely managed it herself and she’s a bona fide fashion icon. Stone is trying, she’s willing to push it, which I appreciate, but she—or her stylist—should have known this dress was ill-advised.

Leggiest Leg Award

Stop the presses—Angelina Jolie wore a black Versace gown. Surprising, I know. (Can you sense the sarcasm?) But still, she looked gorgeous, and the structured dress was a change from her usual sack. The lighter hair color suits her well, too. She looked really happy and fresh, if a bit too thin, and I was really into the bustle on the dress. But of course, it was Jim Rash (Community’s Dean Pelton) who made the night.

Princess Prisoner Bride

SOMEONE HELP HER TO BE FREE.

13 Comments »

Best and worst of the 2012 Golden Globes

Posted in Celebrities, Event with tags , , , , on January 16, 2012 by Sarah

It occurred to me about 2 o’clock on Sunday that I’d forgotten to do my Golden Globe predictions. Oh well. I would’ve guessed The Artist and The Descendants for everything anyway, but I definitely would not have gotten Martin Scorsese for Best Director or Octavia Spencer for Best Supporting Actress. You can see the complete list of winners here. The Golden Globes are not a solid predictor of the Oscars because Oscar ballots are already returned before the Globes announce their winners, but I do think the nominee lists can and do overlap a great deal. For all the politicking that goes into the Oscars, there is still a large percentage of voters who are just lazy and/or indifferent who look at who gets nominated for the Globes and think, “Oh, I heard he/she/that movie was good, so I’ll put them down, too.” All the major Oscar nominees were at the Globes last night.

As for the best and worst dressed, you may notice there are no men on this list. Between the fact that they all looked the same—Colin Firth’s tux was astoundingly well tailored but it still looked like every other tux on the red carpet—I also had a terrible time finding fashion IDs for them, so I gave up. As always with Cinesnark, laziness is the rule, not the exception. On to the best and worst dressed, which we’ll fight about, no doubt.

Best Dressed

Nicole Kidman made a return to my good graces in a studded Versace gown. I used to love Nicole 10-12 years ago. You know, the Divorce Years in the early aughts, when she had Moulin Rouge and that dark ruby red hair and was free and fun, post-Tom Cruise. Then…it started to freeze. Not fade, no, because despite whatever fear Nicole is nursing about aging, beauty like hers doesn’t fade. Not with that bone structure. But it did start to freeze. And then her lips, they exploded from the excessive jacking and she got scary and her fashion sense took a nosedive toward the doily and her hair went to that awful platinum shade that didn’t flatter her at all and she made Australia and killed my lady crush. But last night, with red hair once again, her face considerably less frozen and looking less third-lippy, she scored a sartorial win. First, the fit is crazy. She looks thin but not scarecrowy and the pleating on the bodice is doing wonders for her tits. Also, this gown is how Nicole used to be, when she consistently was one of the most fashion-forward people on the red carpet. So, for nostalgia’s sake and because this was one of the most interesting, least-pageant-bullshit gowns of the night, Nicole Kidman gets a tip o’the cap.

Also best dressed was The Descendants’ Shailene Woodley in, surprise, Marchesa. Usually, Marchesa is total pageant bullshit, but they do occasionally get it right. Last year, I almost loved Olivia Wilde’s Marchesa ballgown, but that dress was too bedazzled for my taste. Woodley’s gown, on the other hand, gets the beaded detailing right. It helps that it’s tone-on-tone, and that Woodley didn’t wear any statement jewelry to compete with the sparkles on her dress. It also helps that this dress is a fitted sheath and not a poofy gown, as it leaves the beaded detailing as the only real design element. It’s surprisingly understated for Marchesa. But where this gown really gets it right is in the absolutely flawless fit and Woodley’s simple styling. I’ve met Shailene Woodley. She’s a sweet girl and a huge hippy. If she showed up in heavy makeup and a sixty-pound ball gown, I’d be disappointed. But her simple, fresh makeup and soft chignon are true to her no-fuss roots. The overall look is young and pretty and decidedly unfussy.

Worst Dressed

The look on Jessica Chastain’s face in this boring, too-tight Givenchy gown clearly says, “Sad dresses make me sad.” It makes me sad, too, Jessie. You wouldn’t know it by looking at her here, but Chastain has a great figure. She’s petite but curvy and has great skin to boot, yet she consistently cannot dress herself in a flattering way. Personally, I think Chastain is a bit indifferent to fashion. Not that she thinks she’s above it or anything, she just isn’t a Fashion Girl and she doesn’t seem to have a particularly keen sense of style. So she leaves everything to a stylist, but her stylist clearly hates her. Dear Jessica: Fire your stylist.

Next up is Freida Pinto in teal blue Prada. It crushes me to put Pinto on this list as I love her and think she’s one of the most beautiful women you’ll find anywhere, and usually she wears interesting stuff on the red carpet. But this gown is not only two sizes too big but it’s so freaking BORING. The color is lovely, yes, and it looks great on Pinto, but that is all the dress has working for it. It’s too big and the belt detail combined with the box pleats is making teeny-tiny Pinto look extra hippy. And the texturing on the dress is less “visually intriguing” and more “cheap flocking”. It’s a bad miss for both Pinto and Prada. And I hate her bump-it hair.

I don’t actually hate Madonna’s Reem Acra gown. It would’ve looked great on, say, The Incomparable Cate Blanchett. It’s less than great on Madonna, however, but she makes this list solely for the way she said “REEM AHCRAH”.

Almost But Not Quite

I really liked Sarah Michelle Gellar in this watercolor/tie-dye print Monique Lhuillier, but it’s slightly too much dress for SMG. Her styling isn’t great and but really, she just doesn’t have enough of an edge for this dress. This dress should be on someone like Evan Rachel Wood, who has the attitude to pull it off, or Sofia Vergara, who makes everything fun. It’s not a bad look on SMG, which is why she’s an “almost”, it’s just not quite the right one for her, either.

Like Freida Pinto, it pains me to not absolutely love whatever Charlize Theron is wearing, in this case, an asymmetrical Dior gown. I think Charlize looks really good, but the diamond headband and overall colorlessness of the look are holding it back for me. Nothing is ever going to induce me to like the headband, but if you must do it, understated is better. Think Carey Mulligan at the 2010 Golden Globes. But the bigger problem is definitely that Charlize is basically a nine-foot-tall taupe stick. The dress, her skin, her hair—it’s all one color. Either pop some color in the makeup or with a colorful clutch, but she needed some oomph to offset the blush colored gown.

Battle of the Yellows

I know that we all wanted to punch Paula Patton in the face last night, but we’re not here to talk about how goddamned fucking annoying she was, ME ME ME-ing the shit out of every moment she could. We’re here to talk about how a number of ladies wore bright yellow (some would call it “Big Bird yellow”) and which of them did it best. In my book, the winner is definitely Paula Patton in a sunshine yellow Monique Lhuillier mermaid gown. The fit is excellent, the shade of yellow is perfect for her complexion, and her styling is solid. Maria Menounos’ yellow dress (couldn’t find the designer) is too tight, and the combination of the bright shade and the sequins is too much, bordering on cheap. And The Killing’s Mireille Enos’ yellow dress is unflattering and a little too grandma-chic with the lacey detailing and saggy bodice. As obnoxious as Patton was, her yellow looks was the best.

Not the Worst Thing Ever

See, this is how you do a colorless gown. Angelina Jolie’s—what are we calling this color? Champagne?—Versace has that red fold on the neckline that she then matched to her clutch and lipstick. That might be a bit too matchy-matchy for some of you, but I thought Angelina looked stunning. First, the dress isn’t a sack. Second, the red fold detail, the lipstick and her sleek hairstyle all emphasize that crazy amazing face. And the fit on this dress is nuts. It’s perfect! Shiny satin is almost impossible to pull off but Angelina does it by dint of tailoring the shit out of it. On anyone else this is not going to be a good look, but given how “Sister Wife No. 7” Angelina usually looks, this is a huge improvement, and thus, not the worst thing ever.

Emma Stone is both interested in fashion and still finding her sartorial voice—which leads to some interesting choices—and this Lanvin goddess gown echoes a look Stone has worked to positive effect before. She tall enough and slender enough to pull off the drapey goddess styles without looking like a feather duster. And this two-tone plum and fuchsia gown is stunning against her pale skin and auburn hair. Love her makeup, too, and her hair style. I don’t love the leather detailing on the dress, though. I would’ve liked it so much more without the epaulets on the shoulders and I definitely would’ve preferred a different, less, um…Third Reich-y belt. I know that’s just an eagle but it looks like it came from an Indiana Jones prop box. Still, Stone has the youth and attitude to work the quirkier styles, which makes this not the worst thing ever.

The Worst Thing Ever

Ah, here is Lea Michele in the bullshit Marchesa we know and loathe. I knew Shailene Woodley’s gown was an aberration. The top half of this dress is that sparkly-and-see-through ice skater chic Marchesa has been working for a couple seasons now, the bottom half is Vegas showgirl. And everything in between is Michele and her ridiculous hard posing (although she was not the biggest perpetrator of this last night). Also awful is her old-lady hair. Michele is a pretty young woman—why must she always dress like she’s a forty-three-year-old divorcee? It’s the worst thing ever.

Natalie Portman in a drunk-bridesmaids-pink Lanvin gown continues her streak as the vomit-inducing Natalie Never. If she keeps this type of bullshit up, I will never ever find a way to like her again. Portman is so pretty and has some real attitude—or she used to, before she created a creation and was taken over by a Stepford wife. This dress is gross. It’s a gross color, a gross style and Portman’s obvious “oh whatever” attitude about wearing it is gross. Natalie Never: The worst thing ever.

Best Trend: Fish Tails

There were a lot of mermaid gowns on the red carpet last night. More than usual, that it. Enough that I’d call it a trend, and it was my favorite of the night. The best examples of the fish tail were easily Evan Rachel Wood in forest-green Gucci and Sofia Vergara in sapphire Vera Wang. ERW’s gown is basically a mermaid costume, with the sequin details done in a fish-scale pattern, but she looks great and she’s legitimately weird enough to wear a mermaid costume on the red carpet and still work it to positive effect. My only wish for ERW is that she would darken the blonde hair a little bit. It’s too harsh and is aging her a bit. Vergara, meanwhile, demonstrates how flattering the fish tail is for curvy girls. The fit of this gown is phenomenal and the boob management is solid, but it’s the proportions that show off her crazy figure that make this such a good look for an hour glass figure.

Worst Trend: Headbands

Ugh. Headbands. I’m never going to like them. If you must wear one, the smaller, sleeker styles are best. Michelle Williams in purple Jason Wu demonstrates how a headband can make a good look go bad. Were it not for her twee and ridiculous headband, she probably would have been my best dressed (although I didn’t love this gown as much as I did her black and white Chanel). And I’m not down with Charlize Theron’s vintage diamond Cartier head piece either. She’s such a beautiful woman; she doesn’t need to gild the lily this much. Also, I feel like wearing such a head piece is basically like saying, “I really want to wear a tiara but don’t have a reason to.” Of course, Charlize was just portraying the Evil Queen in Snow White and the Huntsman, sporting an array of cool crowns. She’s probably still in “bedeck me in jewels, you peasant” mode.

The Tilda Swinton Award for SWINTON

Everybody’s Favorite Alien, Tilda Swinton, was in fine SWINTON form last night, in this periwinkle blue Haider Ackermann ensemble. Is this separates? Or is it a gown? I can’t quite tell. SWINTON works a lot of menswear looks, and the jacket of this gown is in keeping with that style, while the skirt is flattering and on trend with its mini-fish tail. I also love that SWINTON did her hair up like this, instead of slicking it down like she usually does. I feel like this is what her crown looks like, when she’s sitting in her proper place as queen of a dying alien race. Tilda Swinton, the most SWINTON of the night.

The Lea Michele Hard Posing Award

Meanwhile, the Lea Michele Hard Posing Award goes to Piper Perabo, who wore a see-through Theory gown and was either completely shitfaced or else lost her shit and went crazy on the red carpet. There’s not much I can say here, so I’ll let the photos speak for themselves.

9 Comments »

Let’s fight – Round 2: The best actresses under 40

Posted in Celebrities, Movies with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 12, 2011 by Sarah

I know.

I KNOW.

I’m terrible. When I posted the list of the best actors under 40, I said we’d be doing the actresses the next week, and now here it is, months later. What can I say? I’m lazy. But now here we are, with a list of the best actresses under 40. The same rules apply—same age range (25-39) and criteria (body of work, diversity of work, recognition received). I can’t stress enough how much harder this list was than the actors’ list. First, I had waaaay more options. Even after remembering that Rachel Weisz and Gong Li (if you’re scratching your head at Li, check out Raise the Red Lantern or Farewell My Concubine) were over 40, I still had over 30 candidates. At one point, I had five French actresses alone. I know you’re going to be like, “Where’s so-and-so?!” and want to know how I could possibly leave what’s-her-face off the list. The answer is probably that she tied with someone on the list and I made a taste call between them.

Also, this list is in for a shake-up over the next few years as some recent break-out talents continue to establish themselves, like Rooney Mara, Gabourey Sidibe and Anna Kendrick, and foreign-language imports extend their influence, like Aishwarya Rai and Noomi Rapace. And if you want to yell at me for excluding the likes of Insert Name Here, I’m going to agree with you. (For instance, Natalie Portman and Emily Blunt were numbers 16 and 17 but if they rank higher for you, I get it.) This was tough and it was a case of splitting hairs across the board. There may be a dearth of good roles for leading ladies, but there is no shortage of talented actresses.

On to the list!

Jessica Chastain

Where you’ve seen her: The Tree of Life, The Help

Don’t miss her in: Take Shelter

Going from zero to sixty this year is Jessica Chastain, who came out of nowhere to have a year of six (!!!) movies, each vastly different and featuring a range of work that immediately thrust Chastain not only into the spotlight, but onto lists like this. From ditzy trophy wife in The Help to 1950’s homemaker in The Tree of Life to a Mossad agent in The Debt to a woman watching her husband break down in Take Shelter, Chastain is a grounded, convincing presence on screen. She isn’t a showy actress but instead inhabits characters that we recognize and can immediately identify with, aided by her easy, natural touch and ability to look like a wholly new person role to role. Chastain has a long and bright future ahead of her.

Penelope Cruz

Where you’ve seen her: Blow, Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Don’t miss her in: Todo sobre mi madre (All About My Mother)

Penelope Cruz does her best work in her native Spanish, which is less about her accent and more about the kind of roles she gets in the US versus Spain. Here she’s a sex bomb; there she’s a serious and seriously gifted actress. Pedro Almodovar’s favorite muse, Cruz can break your heart with her big eyes. She’s as capable of playing the vulnerable ingénue as she is the scheming mistress, but one of her best talents is that, despite her crazy amazing face, she can seem like such an everywoman. Beauty can be alienating but Cruz wields hers like a defense, a shield to be raised or lowered moment to moment, giving glimpses of an interior life within her characters that enriches her performances.

Vera Farmiga

Where you’ve seen her: The Departed, Up in the Air

Don’t miss her in: Down to the Bone

If you told me fifteen years ago that cheesy historical TV show Roar would produce two of the greatest talents of this generation, I would’ve laughed in your face. Remember that show? Oh my god, it was SO CHEESY. But its two stars were Heath Ledger and Vera Farmiga, so of course, I remember that show not only for the fromage but also for being the first time I saw Farmiga and her piercing eyes (and Ledger’s smile, sigh). In the years since, Farmiga has become one of the most formidable actresses around. She’s a “no bullshit” actress, relying on simplicity of action to communicate with an audience. There’s never any fuss with Farmiga, just complete realization of character every time. And with Higher Ground she earned stellar reviews not just as an actress, but as a director, signaling a new phase to an already interesting career.

Judy Greer

Where you’ve seen her: 27 Dresses, Love and Other Drugs

Don’t miss her in: The Descendants

The greatest character actress under 40, Judy Greer is a That Girl—you know, That Girl from That One Movie/TV Show. Everyone has seen Greer in at least one thing. A natural comedienne, she can just as easily lend a project depth as she can lighten up the proceedings with her killer timing. Greer can be both spaz and poised princess, ditz and savant, best friend and bitch. She’s mastered the “airhead secretary” but is equally believable as a woman in charge. The audience follows where Greer leads—one look from her can determine if we like or loathe a character, which is the trait filmmakers are increasingly keying into. It’s depressing that most will now know her as “That Girl on Two and a Half Men”, but the last couple years have also seen Greer’s film roles getting better and better, and that shows no sign of stopping any time soon.

Maggie Gyllenhaal

Where you’ve seen her: The Dark Knight, Crazy Heart

Don’t miss her in: Sherrybaby

Maggie Gyllenhaal has one of the best bitch faces in the business and she’s the type to meet suggestions that she should be more accessible with a sneer, but it’s that very expressiveness that makes her an effective actress. Gyllenhaal can take on the harder edges, playing the bitches, the sanctimonious, the unlikeable, but she can just as easily drop her guard and show real vulnerability. Her most underappreciated talent as an actress is a natural wit and ability to read a comic line. Gyllenhaal has good timing and is a lot funnier than she usually gets credit for, which will hopefully be on display in the Victorian sex comedy Hysteria. But it’s her ability to make us care about the otherwise unlikeable that lands her on this list.

Sally Hawkins

Where you’ve seen her: Happy Go Lucky, Made in Dagenham

Don’t miss her in: Vera Drake

As the unrelentingly cheerful Poppy Cross in Happy Go Lucky, Sally Hawkins was so personable and bright it was almost unbearable. No one should be that happy! And Hawkins, with her huge smile, was the perfect person to communicate Poppy’s particular brand of cheery, though she can just as easily sneer and tear down, as she did in Jane Eyre. But it’s her brightness that sets Hawkins apart. Watching her, even when her character is less than nice, just makes you feel good. Either she’s actually making you root for her or she’s giving you the satisfaction of watching a job well done, but either way, she has a visceral effect on audiences. She’s a scene dictator like Michael Fassbender, someone who can set the tone and command the emotions in the room without dominating their scene partners. Her no muss/no fuss approach to acting combined with her ability to add shine to a scene makes Hawkins worth watching for sure.

Melanie Laurent

Where you’ve seen her: Inglorious Basterds, Beginners

Don’t miss her in: Je vais bien, ne t’en fais pas (I’m Fine, Don’t Worry)

There are a lot of super talented French actresses working right now—I probably could’ve made this list just using French actresses. So why did Melanie Laurent get the edge? For one thing, she doesn’t struggle with English as some of her peers do (see also: Marion Cotillard, Audrey Tautou), and for another, it’s the way she can command a scene or slide into the background of one just as easily. Laurent is fascinating to watch—even in the face of Christoph Waltz’s mesmerizing Colonel Landa in Inglorious Basterds, Laurent remains an engrossing scene partner. But she can also take a backseat in a scene and not detract from anyone else on screen, which is an underrated trait for a lead actor. Laurent continues working in French cinema, but she’s also gaining more and more notice for her English-language work, so it’s only a matter of time before someone gives her a shot in a Hollywood production. It’ll be interesting to see what trajectory her career ultimately takes.

Charlize Theron

Where you’ve seen her: The Italian Job, Monster

Don’t miss her in: In the Valley of Elah

Another of the great bitch faces, Charlize Theron is so beautiful she’s probably from another planet. Yet she won an Oscar for getting ugly—physically and emotionally—in Monster, the movie about serial killer Aileen Wuornos. Theron is particularly fearless as a performer—with her looks it would be easy to coast by on a string of romantic movies and tear-jerkers, but she instead chooses challenging, difficult roles, and is not afraid to get her hands dirty by playing murderers and villainesses. She’s only now coming back to work after a two-year break with Young Adult, for which she is earning rave reviews, and has several high-profile projects on the horizon. Given her penchant for choosing the tough roles, Theron is sure to have one of the most interesting careers among her peers.

Michelle Williams

Where you’ve seen her: Shutter Island, Blue Valentine

Don’t miss her in: Wendy & Lucy

Whatever else I may think of Michelle Williams, I will never deny that she is hugely talented. As she enters her thirties her face is retaining its gamine quality and she wears her emotional vulnerability on her sleeve (as a performer) in a way that not many actresses have since Audrey Hepburn. It’s that quality that made her a fantastic Marilyn Monroe in My Week with Marilyn—Williams’ emotions are close to the surface and always threaten to bubble over yet she keeps tight control of them. That ability is what caught everyone’s eye in her breakout role in Brokeback Mountain, and it remains one of her greatest strengths as an actress. Williams appears to be a waifish naïf but she has a steely backbone that gives her performances more meat than it may initially seem.

Kate Winslet

Where you’ve seen her: Titanic, Mildred Pierce

Don’t miss her in: Little Children

Kate Winslet makes this list just for the face she made when she lost the Oscar to Helen Hunt (which I tried to find a picture or video of and couldn’t). A legendary WTF face for sure. But seriously, Winslet is on here because she really is a massively talented actress. Trying to choose just two of her most memorable performances was really hard because almost all of Winslet’s performances are memorable. She even made HBO’s interminable Mildred Pierce watchable. If I had to pick one trait that distinguishes Winslet as an actress, it would be intelligence. She gives her characters so much of it that they feel like they could walk off the screen and be an actual person. From lively Marianne Dashwood to depressed April Wheeler, Winslet creates thinking characters that each leaves a mark on audiences.

Honorable Mentions:

Amy Adams

Keira Knightley

Catalina Sandino Moreno

Freida Pinto

Zhang Ziyi

17 Comments »

Casting should not be so stressful

Posted in Celebrities, Movies with tags , , , on December 6, 2011 by Sarah

I really love technology. And obviously, I’m all about Internet culture and New Journalism. A huge, huge downside to entertainment journalism in the post-Google era, though, is that a whole lot of people assume they understand something based on scraps of information doled out willy-nilly. Nowhere does this bug me more than with casting rumors. I’m at the point where, when I’m catching up with an acquaintance who works in a casting office, I routinely say, “Can you please keep that shit off the Internet? It’s exhausting to watch everyone freak out over something that could very well amount to nothing.” Meaning—I don’t think casting should ever be announced until the first day of principal photography on a film shoot. Case in point—everyone was assuming Benicio del Toro was going to be in Star Trek 2, probably as the villain, but just yesterday news came out that his negotiations fell apart and he’s out. And everyone was like OMG THIS IS A CATASTROPHE STAR TREK IS DOOOMED!!!1!!!1!!!

Bitch please. That shit happens all the time.

It usually happens because an actor thinks they’re worth more than the studio is willing to pay (I’m looking at you, Viggo Mortensen), but there are myriad reasons casting talks can fall through. Scheduling. Money. Chemistry doesn’t work out between actors X and Y. In reality, most movies, on average, run through 3-4 actors before a part is cast (I mean in serious talks, not counting the dozens, if not hundreds that may audition and never get a call back). But these days, when so many sit on the Internet and obsess over every little detail, each casting announcement is met with undeserved fanfare and each “oh never mind, that didn’t work” is greeted with uncontrollable despair. If someone enters into talks for a part but those talks don’t pan out, fans of whatever person/project is involved often start up with the “is this project in trouble?” talk.

Take Mortensen and Snow White and the Huntsman earlier this year. Originally tapped for the lead role of the Huntsman, Mortensen got into talks with Universal which ultimately broke down over money. He later cited health and scheduling reasons, which sure, I’ll allow for that to have been a factor. But money was the motivator (from a PR standpoint, though, he can’t really go around saying, “I asked for a bucket of cash and they said no” without alienating pretty much everyone, so it’s a good dodge). Next Universal, not in a panic, called up Hugh Jackman. They didn’t get much further than that with him because he was trying to get The Wolverine off the ground and he passed. They next approached, still not panicking, Thor star Chris Hemsworth, who ended up landing the part. The search was broader than that—you can never put all your eggs in one basket—but Universal only engaged in three serious conversations before casting the role. Totally normal.

Never would’ve known it from the Internet. Is Snow White in trouble? was the banner headline on a lot of film/entertainment sites. (For the record, the only projects I’ve heard of having serious casting trouble this year are Pride & Prejudice & Zombies and The Mortal Instruments.) At no point, though, was Universal worried. They had their list of people they wanted and they ended up getting someone off that list. What’s the big deal?

In the real world, there is no big deal. But on the internet, it’s a disaster because a couple of guys passed. Successful actors routinely pass on projects. They pass on way more than they take. Passing on a project is not a big deal, in and of itself. Successful actors are also passed over for projects. David Fincher recently stated that he ix-nayed Scarlett Johansson for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Is ScarJo suddenly a failure? No, she just wasn’t right for what Fincher wanted to do. I’m totally stating the obvious—this is all common sense stuff—but I challenge you to pick a project in development and follow it through casting. You’ll be amazed at how people lose their shit over nothing.

Of course, it all gets worse when some actor mouths off about almost getting a part and then we start playing Hollywood Sliding Doors. Hollywood Sliding Doors can be fun—I always wonder how different things would be for Dougray Scott today if he had landed Wolverine back in 1999—but generally, it’s not something I put a lot of stock into. If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know I have a lot of pet peeves. Well one of my biggest is when an actor recasts herself in a role that went to someone else. First and foremost, this is intolerably RUDE. It detracts from the person who actually got the role. Second, it’s incredibly bad PR. What if you have to work with that person you just backhand complimented?

This is fresh in my mind because we’ve just had two prominent examples of this. First, Jessica Biel bemoaned how Anne Hathaway keeps getting all the parts she goes out for. It reminded me of this scene in The Trip when Steve Coogan says, “I have an albatross around my neck and it has the face of Michael Sheen.” Biel made herself look pathetic but she also took the shine off Hathaway’s achievements in winning some sought-after, competitive roles. Suddenly Anne Hathaway being Catwoman = pitying Jessica Biel. How gross, to make someone else’s accomplishment about you. It’s like a normal person giving a toast during a co-worker’s “yay promotion!” party and saying, “Well I think I would have done just as a good a job, but congrats, I guess.” TACKY.

Even worse than the “poor me” tactic, is the flat out, “Yeah, I was offered that but I turned it down” approach to self-recasting. Michelle Trachtenberg just pulled this when she said she was offered the role of Bella Swan in Twilight but passed because of either scheduling and/or “already having done the vampire thing”. This is even worse than going “poor me” about losing a role, because at least “poor me” makes it sound like the role was worth having. Pay attention to the kinds of actors that will play the “yeah I could have had that” card about a role—you rarely see it coming from someone really successful. Trachtenberg is stuck on TV, once again playing a character a lot of fans (this time Gossip Girl, last time, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) blame for sucking up their show. Her film career is virtually non-existent. In the interim, she’s watched Kristen Stewart go supernova as Bella Swan.

As IF she wouldn’t have taken Twilight if it was offered to her back in 2007. You know what Trachtenberg was doing in 2007-2008? TV movies. Like she would have actually passed on the lead role in a potential franchise. But that’s the point of the “yeah, I could have had that” tactic—to make the person saying it look so desirable and busy that he/she couldn’t possibly have considered doing whatever major part they turned down. But ultimately making these kinds of statements isn’t worth it. Beyond being rude in the general sense, in an industry sense, it’s so unprofessional I almost can’t bear it. As I mentioned earlier, what if you have to work with the person who did get the role? These are the statements that make PR reps groan out loud and force agents into apologizing for twatty clients. It’s not that I doubt Trachtenberg’s veracity—I believe she talked to Catherine Hardwicke about Twilight. I just don’t for one second believe that she actually passed on the role. Hundreds of actresses were auditioned for Bella Swan but only one was made a formal offer. Neither Trachtenberg nor anyone else ever even had the chance to turn the part down.

And that’s the problem with playing the “yeah, I could have had that” card. Casting for a big part like Bella Swan (or Catwoman) is always followed very closely both within the industry and by industry-watchers. The ramification of recasting yourself in such a role is that everyone will cry BS because the casting story is probably well known. Basically, you look like a liar. But to the public, now it looks like Stewart was second-choice. And now people are assuming something about casting that isn’t true. What gets lost in this kind of posturing is that there are steps to casting. There are auditions, screen tests, talks, offers, negotiations. It’s possible to be in talks for a role you haven’t been formally offered, such as Jackman and Snow White. And with big parts like Bella Swan, even if the director has a clear favorite, they still have to audition and test other people. Partly to cover their own asses—what if there is a real scheduling conflict and your #1 isn’t available? It’s why you can’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Two recent examples of this are The Descendants and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. For The Descendants, director Alexander Payne hand-picked Shailene Woodley as his first choice to play Alex King, but the producers wanted him to audition actresses native to Hawaii. So Woodley had to cool her heels while Payne did that before he could bring her back in. For Dragon Tattoo, Fincher wanted a relative unknown, his favorite being Rooney Mara, while the studio wanted a name. So Fincher was basically forced to screen test a bunch of actresses he knew he didn’t want to hire. Does that in any way detract from Woodley and Mara getting their respective parts? No, it’s business as usual. But should Mara and/or Woodley hit it big, you know some twat will open her mouth and go, “Yeah, I could have had that part.”

Casting doesn’t have to be stressful. Its very nature is change and flux. Any actor you like is going to lose a part and pass on a part in turn. Any project you’re interested in will likely cycle through several people before landing on the person right for the role. Some sad-sack actor will eventually bemoan losing out to someone they perceive as more successful. And inevitably, a twatty actor will claim they could have had a major role that, no, they couldn’t. Any time a new casting announcement is published, we should all just take a breath and remember that until cameras are rolling, nothing is set in stone.

15 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 188 other followers