Here you go, Jordan. Angelina is playing Marilyn Monroe in an upcoming biography, based on a book. The story is told through the eyes of Marilyn's dog.
So do you think we get to see the dog hump a leg or what?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Malevolent
2018 ***1/2 It's 1986 for some reason, and a team of paranormal investigators are making a big name for themselves all over Scotland. ...
-
I’m sure none of you except for JPX knows that I’m a bit of a germ-a-phobic. It’s annoying, but manageable. Though, since I met JPX and list...
14 comments:
I hope so! And I hope the pooch "scores" with both DiMaggio and JFK.
I actually think this is BAD casting. Monroe was the epitome of 1950s sex appeal ("Really?"--sarcastic editor) and, as such, was "zoftig," giggly, breathy, soft-looking, and submissive. Sixty years later, society has changed (thank God) and today's #1 movie goddess is hard, assertive, athletic, toned, skinny, regal and imperious. Like, the exact opposite.
Jolie played a 1920s woman in Changeling (which is totally fantastic but failed at the box office because most people -- even intelligent adults -- don't have the patience for the cerebral, drawn-out pacing of movies about legal struggles) and talked in the featurette about how hard it was to play somebody so passive and weak. Of course the Changeling character was not attempting to evince sex appeal, which is obviously quite different. But this is like casting Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman; it's just so fundamentally against type that it's going to come off screwy.
Of course, she'll probably prove me wrong. The only actress these days who can do the Marilyn thing (since, amongst other attributes, she's not skinny is Christina Hendriks. (The show has already exploited the Marilyn vibe she puts out.)
Jonannson couldn't do it either. It's just like Scorsese putting Gwen Stefani as Jean Harlow: the result is just ridiculous. (Of course, I'm one of the few that thought that Blanchett as Hepburn was ridiculous, too, and she won a fucking Oscar for it.) (I thought Blanchett was a little bit embarrassed when she won, like she kind of knew it was a bullshit performance.)
This is all a good thing. I'm glad modern "screen goddesses" have abandoned the Marilyn-era breathy submissive bullshit (and traded in the boxes of bonbons for gym memberships).
I think they'd need to get a Marilyn impersonator to really make this fly. The whole definition of that kind of stardom is its uniqueness, so there's never been another Marilyn. Any big name you'd cast now has too much of her own persona to really do Marilyn justice. But to my mind, Scarlett at least looks more like Marilyn face and figure wise, and she's got the breathiness thing, too. And well, she's blonde already, not that that's really a tough problem to solve. But who knows, maybe Angela can pull it off.
I didn't see the Changeling but I should Netflix it. It was a really bizarre case.
Changeling was brilliant. One of my favorite Eastwoods.
Julie, you'll totally be down with this (hopefully):
The fundamental problem with courtroom dramas (or, movies/books about extended legal battles) is that the rhythms of legal procedure totally violate the rhythms of drama and storytelling. On television they just compress a trial into an hour; it's bullshit but everybody understands. But actual heroic legal battles (with appeals, stays, easements, evidentiary procedures, jury selection, nullification etc. over years, involving obscure points of law and long periods when absolutely nothing is happening) are an anathema to drama.
But every so often it's possible to find legal-battle stories that don't fit our preconceptions (since they take place against a backdrop of unfamiliar social mores or anachronistic points of law that are the whole point of telling the story). Amistad is an example. Three trials going all the way to John Quincy Adams addressing the Supreme Court, central issue being are slaves property. It's all so weird and old (and it's Spielberg) so you're drawn in. Changeling is like that: a series of bizarre stuff happens because at that time any woman can be declared "hysterical" and hospitalized (and fucking electroshocked) against her will without a doctor's opinion. (And it's Eastwood.) So, anyway, highly recommended.
Interesting. I was just re-reading Blake Snyder's Save the Cat to get ready to write a couple features. (It's been a while.) He has this whole thing about the ten storylines that exist in movies--more sort of Joseph Campbell-esque story similarities, beyond just genre. So he calls a movie plot like this the "Whydunnit." The idea being that the dark heart of human nature is what the audience discovers at the end of the mystery. Courtroom dramas are usually this type of movie.
I have to admit that I am bored just hearing about this type of movie, but we should Netflix Changling and check it out. I was horrified when I heard the story on NPR one day--man LA was corrupt back then.
But it's not a "whydoneit" (having seen the movie). That sounds like a critique from somebody who finds this sort of thing boring (with all due respect). I am familiar with that "only ten plots" theory and I think it's bunk (again, with all due respect).
Why do you find them boring?
I found "the dark heart of human nature" in Blue Velvet, Barry Lyndon, Schindler's List, Citizen Kane, River's Edge, Taxi Driver and Schindler's List, and there's not a single trial in any of them. I hate that kind of meta-narrative theorizing.
Schindler's List is there twice by accident, but it's appropriate.
"Why did [Schindler] change? What happened to turn him from a victimizer into a humanitarian? It is to the great credit of Steven Spielberg that his film "Schindler's List" does not even attempt to answer that question."
--Roger Ebert's review
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19931215/REVIEWS/312150301/1023
Furthermore, what about The Verdict or To Kill a Mockingbird or 12 Angry Men or ...and justice for all or Erin Brockovitch or Milk? Wall to wall courtroom action and not a "why" to be found anywhere.
Schindler's list is apparently categorized as "Dude With a Problem."
Read the book for more answers!
I don't think that's funny.
Post a Comment