Vanity Fair "fur" Diane Arbus *scans*, Thanks Livia (and centergirl) Options

[RedSatinDoll]

Red, there was an article with Nicole in Vanity Fair last year and the interviewer Ingrid Sichey (sic) who is a friend of Nicole's too (and discloses this in her article) made plans to meet Nicole who was going to view a Diane Arbus exhibit. Nicole then called Ingrid and said it was something she needed to do alone as it didn't feel right to be accompanied when she was probably trying to just understand Diane and get under her skin. When I read this part of the article, I really understood (as did Ingrid) why it was just important for Nicole to be alone with Diane (i.e., her work)....

It's been a while since I've pulled out that maggie and read that interview, so thank you for the reminder, Ronnocco. It reminds me of how she spent some time alone at a cottage to prepare for the shooting of her segment of "The Hours" (and to get a mental break from the hullabaloo and trauma re: her divorce.)

It seems to me that Nicole approaches her work reminds of a monk or nun (whether buddist or catholic) going into meditation or devotions, or the way one might approach any spiritual practice. The sense that I get is that there is the practical aspect of learning the lines, getting to know or build a sense of "character", etc and so forth, and then metaphorically opening herself up or "stepping aside" and serving as a conduit or "clear channel" to let the character come forward and speak for herself. That is not to say her "personality" is not involved at all (one might say it is her personality that determines many of her choices at the beginning - why she leans towards certain roles and not others) but in most instances (in her finest performances) it's not "Nicole" we are watching onscreen.

This sense of "separation" may account for some of David Thompson's disappointment (as noted in his book "The Whole Equation") while watching Nicole accept her Oscar for playing Virginia Woolf ("She was a mess"). He was expecting Virginia to have "rubbed off" on Nicole to the extent that she was "transformed" into a more intelligent, more verbally eloquent woman. (I can only surmise that he had never seen her interviewed on Charlie Rose.) That she was changed by the experience, by the "intercourses" between herself and her characters, she herself made and makes clear in interviews. But Thompson I think misunderstands (or misunderstood - I'll see where he stands in his upcoming "bio" of her) the nature of her work and her working methods - as is entirely unfair to expect that a character would transform the actor who plays her in visible, spectacular ways when in fact such "transformations", if they occur at all, are generally of a much more subtle nature.

[kiki]

It's been a while since I've pulled out that maggie and read that interview, so thank you for the reminder, Ronnocco.  It reminds me of how she spent some time alone at a cottage to prepare for the shooting of her segment of "The Hours" (and to get a mental break from the hullabaloo and trauma re: her divorce.)

It seems to me that Nicole approaches her work reminds of a monk or nun (whether buddist or catholic) going into meditation or devotions, or the way one might approach any spiritual practice.  The sense that I get is that there is the practical aspect of learning the lines, getting to know or build a sense of "character", etc and so forth, and then metaphorically opening herself up or "stepping aside" and serving as a conduit or "clear channel" to let the character come forward and speak for herself.  That is not to say her "personality" is not involved at all (one might say it is her personality that determines many of her choices at the beginning - why she leans towards certain roles and not others) but in most instances (in her finest performances) it's not "Nicole" we are watching onscreen. 

This sense of "separation" may account for some of David Thompson's disappointment (as noted in his book "The Whole Equation") while watching Nicole accept her Oscar for playing Virginia Woolf ("She was a mess").  He was expecting Virginia to have "rubbed off" on Nicole to the extent that she was "transformed" into a more intelligent, more verbally eloquent woman.  (I can only surmise that he had never seen her interviewed on Charlie Rose.)  That she was changed by the experience, by the "intercourses" between herself and her characters, she herself made and makes clear in interviews.  But Thompson I think misunderstands (or misunderstood - I'll see where he stands in his upcoming "bio" of her) the nature of her work and her working methods - as is entirely unfair to expect that a character would transform the actor who plays her in visible, spectacular ways when in fact such "transformations", if they occur at all, are generally of a much more subtle nature.

i haven't read any of his works about nicole. for me, a character is only as good as the actor playing it. it's always a reflection of what they can do, what they've been through, and who they are. there should always, however, be a distinction between them because then, where is the line drawn? it's good to take something out of a character but what nicole has created in most of her characters root from or at the very least was nurtured by her. it seems mr. thompson's ideas are too ideal and are of no basis. i find it quite ridiculous to be "transformed" by a character. if anything, the actress is the one who's supposed to give it life.

[skankyoldwhore]

As much as I am looking forward to reading Thomson's book on NK, something keeps niggling at me and it is that he WILL NOT give her the credit she deserves. Nicole was an award winning actress before embarking on Hollywood, a teenage award winning actress, and that was not an easy feat. A bimbo as Thomson seems intent on calling Nicole couldn't have achieved what NK did in her teen years an as actress. The term, bimbo, is about as far away from NK as you can get.

[RedSatinDoll]

i haven't read any of his works about nicole. for me, a character is only as good as the actor playing it. it's always a reflection of what they can do, what they've been through, and who they are. there should always, however, be a distinction between them because then, where is the line drawn? it's good to take something out of a character but what nicole has created in most of her characters root from or at the very least was nurtured by her. it seems mr. thompson's ideas are too ideal and are of no basis. i find it quite ridiculous to be "transformed" by a character. if anything, the actress is the one who's supposed to give it life.

Kiki, just as an FYI I'm basing my remarks from chapter 2 of Thompson's "The Whole Equation". I read the chapter months ago and then re-read it recently and found that my initial reaction to it was not mistaken, although I may be accused of misunderstanding Mr. Thompson. I agree very much though with your summary that "Mr. Thompson's ideas are too ideal". That pretty much hits the nail on the proverbial head based on my reading of the chapter. (There's also the sense of embarrassment that a theoretically intelligent, intellectual person - particularly a man, I think - suffers when having to admit that he is a "fan" (such a juvenile, emotional, irrational and/or "female" state of affairs, alas! ), and so he has to contort his admiration just a bit to denegrate the


EDIT: Rereading your last sentence Kiki I am struck anew by the validity of it. I think Mr. Thompson got the dynamic of actor/character quite "bass-ackwards."

This post has been edited by RedSatinDoll: Jul 14 2006, 07:56 AM

[RedSatinDoll]

As much as I am looking forward to reading Thomson's book on NK, something keeps niggling at me and it is that he WILL NOT give her the credit she deserves.  Nicole was an award winning actress before embarking on Hollywood, a teenage award winning actress, and that was not an easy feat.  A bimbo as Thomson seems intent on calling Nicole couldn't have achieved what NK did in her teen years an as actress.  The term, bimbo, is about as far away from NK as you can get.

I wondered when you'd come 'round here, Professor. Those are my thoughts exactly (ye gods, we are in total agreement?) - and rereading chapter 2 of The Whole Equation did nothing to dispell that same feeling in myself.

[skankyoldwhore]

I wondered when you'd come 'round here, Professor.    Those are my thoughts exactly (ye gods, we are in total agreement?) - and rereading chapter 2 of The Whole Equation did nothing to dispell that same feeling in myself.

Did he expect her to suddenly start behaving like Virginia Woolf all of a sudden? Nicole Kidman will always be Nicole Kidman, if she got emotional when she received her Oscar then good for her, does he think VW wouldn't be moved by her legend and how people revere her if she were able to glimpse and see how people take her work today? Why should NK suddenly start acting like VW? If VW had any influence on her then I do hope the influence doesn't erase who NK is. Thomson is a follower or avid fan of Orson Welles, has he taken up Welles' persona?

[kiki]

yep. and if there even was a transformation or influence, it isn't always so blatant. i'm thinking mr. thompson wanted something tangible and visible which i think is very superficial. from what i've learned about it, i am no longer interested in reading his books. i'd rather make do with smaller infos that have basis and are warranted by those who really think. it's probably fear that has forced him to write those things. maybe while doing (writing) so in the privacy of his office, he's gushing just like a real fan.

[bywayoftexas]

Robert Downy Jr was on Inside the Actors Studio last night and they spoke about Fur.

i saw this tonight. james lipton said that nicole is exhilarating to watch and when he asked downey what it was like to work with her, downey said after viewing the exhibit, he saw flashes of diane in nicole. after looking at the photo here, downey's comments, your insight, and hearing daldry talk about nicole's ability to maintain an emotional landscape for days on end (with charlie rose), i'm looking forward to seeing her bring diane arbus to the screen.

thank you for the scans!

[RedSatinDoll]

i saw this tonight.  james lipton said that nicole is exhilarating to watch and when he asked downey what it was like to work with her, downey said after viewing the exhibit, he saw flashes of diane in nicole.  after looking at the photo here, downey's comments, your insight, and hearing daldry talk about nicole's ability to maintain an emotional landscape for days on end (with charlie rose), i'm looking forward to seeing her bring diane arbus to the screen.

thank you for the scans! 

Thanks for that report, Tex. (Or is it "Miss Tex" to me? ) I don't know why she hasn't been on the Actors Studio - I've never seen it (I don't have cable) and have heard less than flattering things about the host, but now I MUST see Stephen Daldry's interview with Charlie Rose based on what you've repeated. What a brilliant assessment of her work.

[bywayoftexas]

Thanks for that report, Tex.  (Or is it "Miss Tex" to me? )  I don't know why she hasn't been on the Actors Studio - I've never seen it (I don't have cable) and have heard less than flattering things about the host, but now I MUST see Stephen Daldry's interview with Charlie Rose based on what you've repeated.  What a brilliant assessment of her work.

red, no need for formalities...tex will do nicely. yes, go back to the interviews with charlie rose. the daldry interview link is on page 2. he said he was actually worried for nicole's well being in the hours because she "drowns" herself in the film. it seemed to go along with the discussion although i know nothing about thompson. can someone point me in the right direction so i can learn a little more?

[RedSatinDoll]

Tex, chapter 2 of Thompson's book "The Whole Equation" (available in the film studies sections of fine bookstores everywhere *lol* - I think it's out in paperback now, but the hardcover version has a photo of Nicole on the back jacket, which is why I picked the book up originally) covers his feelings/opinions regarding Nicole Kidman's performance in The Hours, her "performance" at the Oscars, and why he thinks The Hours is a good film but ultimately far less a masterpiece than the novel Mrs. Dalloway - and why even great films in general can't measure up to great novels. He also confesses (with some apparent embarrassment or discomfort) that he is a fan of Nicole (I don't recall if he uses the term "fan" or not) beyond simply respecting her work, but drawn by what he calls her "mystique", etc. (I didn't buy the book, by the way - I simply stood in the bookstore and read the chapter. )

His book "Nicole Kidman" is coming out in September; there's a thread for it here in the Inbox (forgive me I couldn't locate it - Prof. Skanky, please?) I have no idea if it is meant to be principally a biography or a work of film studies/analysis/opinion.

Another member here was kind enough to send me an interview with Thompson in which he talks about his (varied and very interesting) career as a writer; I shall look for that article so I can post the link.

The use of the word "bimbo" in reference to Nicole goes back to yet another interview (*searching, searching*) in which he praises her recent film roles (including The Human Stain, one of my all-time faves) but then can't resist referrring to his perception of her (prior to her divorce) as a "bimbo" - i.e., who was this "bimbo", this Mrs. So-and-so who just seemed to come out of nowhere and proved herself as an actress with these stunning performances?

No doubt he meant it in a jesting, offhand manner, but he ignores the fact that her career dates back to her teens, and before coming to the US she was already an award-winning actress in Australia with several acclaimed performances (Vietnam, Bankok Hilton) under her belt by the time she was in her early 20's. It also ignores her pre-divorce performances in To Die For and Portrait of a Lady, amoungst others.

All of which I understand - when To Die For came out my initial reaction was "Oh, she's so-and-so's wife, but what has she done since...Dead Calm that I would really care about?" (Never mind that I'd seen almost none of her films in the interim.) We all know about the uphill battle she faced there, which she parodied beautifully on her turn as guest host on SNL, and which the interviewers threw at her at nauseum. "So, how are you going to make people forget you're Mrs ---?" ("Not by having to answer that ridiculous question for only the 1,000th time - in one day.")

What I really take issue with is the fact that Mr. Thompson is so uncomfortable with the notion that he is a "fan" of Nicole's, by the very dynamics of "fandom" if you will, (which may or may notinclude elements or romantic or sexual attraction or idealization, or an inexplicable emotional identification with the actor or on-screen roles) that he feels the need to denigrate both her intelligence and her sexuality in a single blow. (Can you imagine anyone calling DeNiro, Pacino, or Penn "a bimbo"?)

Perhaps gender is part of the difference. Yes, I can sympathize on some level with Mr. Thompson's plight - I find that being a "fan" can be strange, embarrassing, emotional, irrational, highly feminized, etc etc. It can also be pleasurable, and a way to connect with others who feel similarly. In any case, my tendancy is to denegrate myself rather than Nicole (it isn't Nicole's fault that I "dig" her, to use the '60's phrase. Why should I put HER down for my own emotional states?) Perhaps in part because my fandom arises from emotional identification with qualities her characters bring forth on screen, in which I see echoes of my own life, situation and personality, or of people I know and love. Whereas to Mr. Thompson, Nicole will always be the mysterious "other" (female) rather "self" (male). And that "other" is invariably identified with those qualities we wish we possessed - and those we wish we did not, everything messy and emotional and irrational within ourselves.

(As I probably became incoherent, oh, sometime around the beginning of this post, I suppose it's far past time I stopped.)

red, no need for formalities...tex will do nicely.    yes, go back to the interviews with charlie rose.  the daldry interview link is on page 2.  he said he was actually worried for nicole's well being in the hours because she "drowns" herself in the film.  it seemed to go along with the discussion although i know nothing about thompson.  can someone point me in the right direction so i can learn a little more?

[kiki]

We all know about the uphill battle she faced there, which she parodied beautifully on her turn as guest host on SNL, and which the interviewers threw at her at nauseum.  "So, how are you going to make people forget you're Mrs ---?" ("Not by having to answer that ridiculous question for only the 1,000th time - in one day.")

i think we're all waay past this question as she's fully established now- on her own terms actually. great analysis red. i find it quite idiotic that people take such offense in admitting that they're a fan of someone. same goes for the detractors who i always have a suspicion on. anyway, i read an article about how someone lands a vanity fair cover. quite interesting actually. it mentions nicole and how she's mastered this game. i don't think the title necessarily applies to her (supported by the fact that the author himself said she does not reveal anything but it always works) read this:

How To Sell Your Soul for the Cover of Vanity Fair!
Bill Robinson
Mon Jul 10, 1:04 AM ET

Like most people, I don't often think about Hilary Swank. Or her husband Chad Lowe. I've met them a couple times in the course of work, and they seemed lovely. So it was surprising when my computer started insisting I read about their marriage. Suddenly, I couldn't even check my email without dodging pop-up windows, teasing me with the promise of their tawdry secrets: "Hilary Swank tells all about Chad's substance abuse problem!" I mean... Seriously? Putting aside the obvious question of who ********* cares, there was the sadder feeling of a two-time Oscar winner ratting out her ex-tv star ex-husband (whom she forgot to thank in her acceptance speech) after dumping him. Why would she do such a graceless, tacky thing? Then it all clicked: she wanted the cover of Vanity Fair. And she got it.
The fact is, spilling an ugly secret is the price of admission for the cover of Vanity Fair. And it's corporate policy. Just ask Terri Hatcher, who tried to peddle "I got dumped by Clooney and/or Seacrest" and ended up having to go with "my uncle molested me" to get the cover. Anderson Cooper revealed "for the first time" the tragic details of his brother's suicide, and became one of the few men to grace the cover. Jennifer Aniston practically subjected herself to a full cavity search to get the cover. And of course there's perennial fave Nicole Kidman, who has really mastered the art of giving V.F. readers emotional, in-depth interviews that reveal absolutely nothing. In fact, other wanna-be cover victims should take a page from Nic's book; she's great at gaming the system.

But I don't really blame Vanity Fair for the current pop culture of confession. In fact, I blame Oprah. She legitimized and encouraged the notion that celebrities have to reveal hideous secrets to become human, and humans have to reveal hideous secrets to become celebrities. It's probably not a coincidence that a woman like Oprah, who was raised reciting scripture in Mississippi churches from the age of three, would become the nation's pastor, hosting afternoon confessionals. Every weekday afternoon, she leads her flock of 25 million into one side of the sacred booth, to hear what co-opted guests will whisper through the partition.

here's the link to the whole article: Vanity Fair Cover Issue

[bywayoftexas]

thank you red! i remembered the biography thread and ran down this description, which i find engaging:

Posted on the Bloomsbury Publishing's website at:
http://www.bloomsbury.com/rights/details.a...ction=ad&list=&


"Kidman"
David Thomson
Published: September 2006

Could one see a magazine deciding that Julia Roberts or Jennifer Lopez or Angelina Jolie were ‘intriguing’? There is something mysterious and not quite settled with Nicole Kidman. That’s why David Thomson, one of the world’s greatest writers on film, knew he wanted to write about her, because while there may (just) be more attractive women on the screen, and even more consistent actresses, there isn’t any modern career that has so transformed itself. It’s as if Nicole Kidman suddenly decided no, I’m not just Mrs Tom, I’m not just a nice red-headed Sheila, I’m an actress, a businesswoman, I’m something — and I’m going to show you all.

How else does one reconcile the Kidman of the early and middle 1990s, the woman who was so often pretty but not much else in Days of Thunder, Billy Bathgate, Far and Away, Malice, Batman Forever, The Portrait of a Lady and even Eyes Wide Shut, with the steady progression of Moulin Rouge, The Others and Birthday Girl, and then The Hours, Cold Mountain and others? Not all her recent films are good and she’s not a triumph in all of them — but she is a dangerous actress, a risk-taker, someone pushing at her own talent.

This is a biography of an Australian girl who has become world famous. It’s also the record of an actress as she grew. The book is a vivid portrait, a searching treatment of acting and of a business career, but also a tribute to someone who has it in her to move millions of strangers.

like it or not mr. thompson, you're a fan.

[archer]

...an interview with Thompson in which he talks about his (varied and very interesting) career as a writer; I shall look for that article so I can post the link.

RedSatinDoll, are you thinking about this link ?

interview with D.Thompson

In any case, my tendancy is to denegrate myself rather than Nicole  (it isn't Nicole's fault that I "dig" her, to use the '60's phrase. Why should I put HER down for my own emotional states?) Perhaps in part because my fandom arises from emotional identification with qualities her characters bring forth on screen, in which I see echoes of my own life, situation and personality, or of people I know and love.  Whereas to Mr. Thompson, Nicole will always be the mysterious "other" (female) rather "self" (male). And that "other" is invariably identified with those qualities we wish we possessed - and those we wish we did not, everything messy and emotional and irrational within ourselves.

RedSatinDoll, "to denigrate yourself rather than Nicole" , very magnanimous and noble of you ! but it's unfair... for you.

[RedSatinDoll]

RedSatinDoll, are you thinking about this link ?

interview with D.Thompson
RedSatinDoll, "to denigrate yourself rather than Nicole" , very magnanimous and noble of you ! but it's unfair... for you. 

Perhaps...but it's just one of my quirks, I'm afraid.

And yes that is one of the two links I had in mind (you sent that to me previously and I enjoyed it very much) so thank you very much!

BTW I forgot to mention that the new Vanity Fair finally showed up in the area and I got myself a copy (It's mine! All mine!) This is one of those times when it was worth it - the article by Bosworth is fascinating and seeing the scans just isn't the same as seeing the photo of Nicole on paper. The first time I read the article, I looked at that photo and her eyes- those haunted eyes - mesmerized me. The second night, it was the hands that caught and held my attention for reasons I can't begin to put into words. When they say she's "in character" they mean it - even her hands and arms seem to belong to someone else and look familiar and yet completely unfamiliar.

[kiha]

RedSatinDoll,Jul 20 2006, 07:23 AM]
The first time I read the article, I looked at that photo and her eyes- those haunted eyes - mesmerized me.  The second night, it was the hands that caught and held my attention for reasons I can't begin to put into words.  When they say she's "in character" they mean it - even her hands and arms seem to belong to someone else and look familiar and yet completely unfamiliar.

I already can not wait for this movie to come out, but your words about how just in the photos you can see how into this part she is makes me want to see it all the more.

Thanks RS

[RedSatinDoll]

I already can not wait for this movie to come out, but your words about how just in the photos you can see how into this part she is makes me want to see it all the more.

Thanks RS

You're quite welcome. Just doing my duty as a dedicated Nicole Kidman-Urban fan.

[Michelle Chi]

Thanks!!
But I don't know the name in Chinese!
I need to wait!!

[Meisha]

Thanks!!
But I don't know the name in Chinese!
I need to wait!!

Welcome to NKU, Michelle!

I believe I have seen the Chinese press call this film (Fur) as 皮毛.

This post has been edited by Meisha: Jul 21 2006, 03:04 PM

[Michelle Chi]

Thank you!!
Yes,I saw that before...But I thought they just translate it..(The name is a little strange I thought..........So I didn't believe!!)
And now I sould believe it><