Nobody Told Uk Critics About The Nicole Backlash? Options

[friendlyfox]

NOTE: On the subject of contrasting Cate Blanchett to Nicole, I think that was best left out of the first post. It may have been slightly relevant, but it is unnecessary and has been worded in such a way as to seem a bit sarcastic about Cate.

Both Cate and Nicole are fine actresses, both with their good films and not-so-good films. It is not the place of this board to analyse Cate's work. For that, please go to a Cate Blanchett board.

My understanding from the first post and the title was that the point is Nicole was treated differently in the UK reviews than the US reviews. That did not need to have any mention to Cate.

So please leave Cate off the topic. Thanks



Turning to other matters, I assume from this that Fur is finally showing in the UK as was expected. After not materializing in Australia and other places we were not sure it would happen. I am glad the UK members can now see the film

This post has been edited by friendlyfox: Mar 17 2007, 01:49 PM

[skankyoldwhore]

Turning to other matters,  I assume from this that Fur is finally showing in the UK as was expected. After not materializing in Australia and other places we were not sure it would happen. I am glad the UK members can now see the film

Considering how the movie is being screened, I might as well wait for the dvd release, it will take me about an hour and a half to get to the nearest cinema closest to me that screens it and there are only 2 screenings per day so far, .

[polaris]

Hmmm. I don't take kindly to criticism of Cate Blanchett . She is a genius, someone who seems to have been born to act. I just seem not to gravitate toward the films that she acts in.

Nicole Kidman is a different kind of actress. We've talked about this before but my view is that, while she does not possess Blanchett's effortless chameleonic facility, she seems to make up for it with an obsessive work ethic and keen character studies. I like Kidman's roles more than I like Blanchett's.

Nicole really needs to bring it this year. Not only good movies, but performances so strong and forceful, that even that most adamant anti-Kidman critic, will have to at least grudgingly concede that she did an excellent job.

I don't follow why "Nicole needs to bring it". For the last six years, she has always "brought it". Her recent performances have all been strong, whether they have been perceived that way by general audiences or not. If there is only one thing that defines NK as an actress, it seems to be that she works extraordinarily hard. And if you want the most adamant anti-Kidman critic to grudgingly concede defeat, then that wish cannot be satisfied. It is impossible to satisfy all critics because different critics (good or not) have a different set of assumptions.

Brilliant, underplayed subtle performances like Fur just aren't enough for many American critics anymore, it seems.

I hope you are not suggesting that Nicole should reduce or abandon this kind of role in favor of work that will please the American critics. Because it is in films like these (Birth, Fur, Dogville) that she seems to do her best work.

As regards NK's upcoming films, my expectations (just personal expectations, I'm no good at predicting the box office clout and critical success) are as follows:
The Visiting: Low
Margot at the Wedding: Medium to High
The Golden Compass: Low
Australia: Medium

I haven't seen her two latest films, so I could add expectations from them as well:
Happy Feet: High
Fur: High

This post has been edited by polaris: Mar 17 2007, 05:23 PM

[cinemasaver]

[quote=polaris,Mar 17 2007, 04:11 PM]
[COLOR=purple]Hmmm. I don't take kindly to criticism of Cate Blanchett . She is a genius, someone who seems to have been born to act. I just seem not to gravitate toward the films that she acts in.

Nicole Kidman is a different kind of actress. We've talked about this before but my view is that, while she does not possess Blanchett's effortless chameleonic facility, she seems to make up for them with an obsessive work ethic and keen character studies. I like Kidman's roles more than I like Blanchett's.[QUOTE]

They are both superior actresses, the difference being Cate Blanchett is better suited for more 'stagey' roles, aka 'Elizabeth,' whereas, for me anyway, it is Nicole Kidman who is the genius, the intuitive actor with that quality of cinematic charisma
that so few actors/ actresses transmit on screen.

I agree with you, Polaris, that 'I just seem not to gravitate towards the films' Cate acts in eg I have no desire to see her and Judy Dench in 'Notes on a Scandal' or Cate in 'Candy' or 'The Good German'. In fact it's only 'Elizabeth' (and I'm sure she will be superb in the next episode) and the Australian film, 'Oscar and Lucinda,' that she was really outstanding. There has been a lot of hype lately connected with the Oscars.

This post has been edited by cinemasaver: Mar 17 2007, 03:51 PM

[hamlet]

[quote=polaris,Mar 17 2007, 04:11 PM

I don't follow why "Nicole needs to bring it". For the last six years, she has always "brought it". Her recent performances have all been strong, whether they have been perceived that way by general audiences or not. If there is only one thing that defines NK as an actress, it seems to be that she works extraordinarily hard. And if you want the most adamant anti-Kidman critic to grudgingly concede defeat, then that wish cannot be satisfied. It is impossible to satisfy all critics because different critics (good or not) have a different set of assumptions.
I hope you are not suggesting that Nicole should reduce or abandon this kind of role in favor of work that will please the American critics. Because it is in films like these (Birth, Fur, Dogville) that she seems to do her best work.

I think that's an interesting view of things. A very idealistic view. In an ideal world, I'd agree with you 100%.

And of course I don't advocate Nicole reducing or abandoning the risker and smaller material that she's drawn to. It's why I like her in the first place. I'll watch Birthday Girl any day over Cold Mountain, if you get my drift.

But perception does matter in the real world. It's a dangerous time for an actress of Nicole's age to be consistently associated with critically and/or commercially underwhelming films.

I don't want to mention any other actresses by name anymore, since it seems to have become a point of contention that was blown out of proportion. But I've seen plenty of extremely talented actressses, once huge stars in their prime, whose careers started to falter once they reached a certain age (or even before they've reached a certain age). Some of these actresses still do excellent work, often in small independent movies, but nobody cares anymore. I don't want Nicole to become irrelevant, in terms of her status in the industry. I want her to keep doing the Furs and the Births, but imho, it's been too long since she's had a really great performance in a film that played well both to audiences and critics. The Others, Moulin Rouge and The Hours kinda fall into that catergory, and I don't think she's had one of those for awhile. That's kinda what I mean by wanting Nicole to "bring it in 2007". I know she always "brings it" performance wise, but a critical/commercial success with a major performance seems overdue for her. I'd love her to get a critiical/commercial home-run on the maginitude of The Others, then go straight back to something weird and avant garde that comes with a high risk of failure.

If audiences/critics start getting into the mindset of "oh, here comes another Nicole Kidman vehicle that doesn't work", it'll start to have serious reprecussions eventually. No star is too big or too talented to fade, imho.

I think risky career choices need to be counterbalanced by a few out and out home-runs.

[In Theory]

I think risky career choices need to be counterbalanced by a few out and out home-runs.

What exactly IS an "out and out home run"?

Making movies is far from an exacting science. There are so many factors that go into a successful movie. A lot of them have nothing to do with the writer, director, actors etc. They have to do with luck, mood of the audience etc.

I've seen a lot of movies expected to do gang busters that totally tanked and some with moderate expectations hit the magical mark. The Others, Moulin Rouge and even The Hours are cases in this point. Three movies not expected to do much but "hit it out of the park". If you listen to the commentary for The Hours Meryl Streep says, that while making the movie, she didn't think anybody would go to see it. Nicole says the same of The Others.

While there are some pretictable factors there are many non-predictable ones as well. It is because Nicole took risks in doing these movies, that it catipulted her to superstardom.

My 2 cents.

[hamlet]

What exactly IS an "out and out home run"?

Making movies is far from an exacting science.  There are so many factors that go into a successful movie.  A lot of them have nothing to do with the writer, director, actors etc.  They have to do with luck, mood of the audience etc.

I've seen a lot of movies expected to do gang busters that totally tanked and some with moderate expectations hit the magical mark.  The Others, Moulin Rouge and even The Hours are cases in this point.  Three movies not expected to do much but "hit it out of the park".  If you listen to the commentary for The Hours Meryl Streep says, that while making the movie, she didn't think anybody would go to see it.  Nicole says the same of The Others.

While there are some pretictable factors there are many non-predictable ones as well.  It is because Nicole took risks in doing these movies, that it catipulted her to superstardom. 

My 2 cents.

Very true, I guess.

Now that I think of it, Nicole was quite lucky to have 3 such artistically valid films , in a short space of time, that connected to both audiences and critics, in which she did some of her best work. It's not a regular occurence for any actor (unless you're part of the great ,moviemaking 1970's generation, like DeNiro, Pacino, Hoffman and Nicholson). In one sense, Nicole is luckier than most.

This post has been edited by hamlet: Mar 18 2007, 01:58 AM

[Mara]

Nicole really needs to bring it this year. Not only good movies, but performances so strong and forceful, that even that most adamant anti-Kidman critic, will have to at least grudgingly concede that she did an excellent job. Brilliant, underplayed subtle performances like Fur just aren't enough for many American critics anymore, it seems. I have the most confidence in The Golden Compass. The performance plays against Nicole's most recent "types" (ie/ the ethereal, fragile roles of Fur and Birth), and as we already know, she has a habit at excelling when playing villiains (as in Malice and To Die For). I also hope she can give a knockout comic performance in Margot At The Wedding, a film which has the credential to be this years quirky indie dramedy oscarbait hit (like Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine, The Squid And The Whale).

I'm most worried about Invasion. Reports of reshoots without the original director, and bad early buzz aren't exactly making me confident. The role itself doesn't seem to be anything special either (but who knows, maybe she'll surprise and give a performance as strong as The Others). This film has the highest possibility of being a critical failure for Nicole, one that will only be forgotten if she knocks it out of the park with both The Golden Compass and Margot At the Wedding. Still, hopefully, the presence of Daniel " critical flavor of the month" Craig in Invasion will help critics treat the movie with an open mind.

These are excatly my thoughts!

Here in Finland critics disliked Fur (it's release date was yesterday), but some have praised her performance and some others have said that she has based her performance on her blushed manners (don't know what she meens with those). I have read few 2 star reviews, one 1½ star review, one 3 star and one 4 star review! I can translate it for you someday :)

This post has been edited by Mara: Mar 18 2007, 03:08 AM

[In Theory]

Now that I think of it, Nicole was quite lucky to have 3 such artistically valid films , in a short space of time, that connected to both audiences and critics, in which she did some of her best work. It's not a regular occurence for any actor (unless you're part of the great ,moviemaking 1970's generation, like DeNiro, Pacino, Hoffman and Nicholson). In one sense, Nicole is luckier than most.

I think you are right about this.

You mentioned in a previous post that many actresses who were once very hot, although still working and doing good work, aren't so "hot" anymore. In the fickle world of show business I would think they are happy just working and doing work that they actually like. With a career in entertainment, be it acting or music, I think one has to be a little philisophical about it. Careers change with time, there is no question. It's how the individual deals with that change that is the critical part.

[janjan]

When she does make her small movies like Birth, Fur, and Dogville, even if most people don't like them, they still recognize that these were brave, risky choices for a big star like her. She doesn't suffer for their "failure" as much as say, Bewitched. As a fan, it would be nice if she can get some Oscar and commercial love. But maybe that's not really a concern for her at this point of her career.

I am excited about The Golden Compass. The studio seems to be really pushing for the film (toys, video games) and she has an interesting role. It could be really successful. Or, bomb harder than anyone could predict. Hoping for the former.

As regards NK's upcoming films, my expectations (just personal expectations, I'm no good at predicting the box office clout and critical success) are as follows:
The Visiting: Low
Margot at the Wedding: Medium to High
The Golden Compass: Low
Australia: Medium

My expectations:
The Visiting: Low. I don't remember which interview it was but Nicole said making the Baumbach film brought back her love for acting or something like that. She had already finished The Visiting before she started on Margot at the Wedding so...
Margot at the Wedding: High
The Golden Compass: High
Australia: Medium. This reminds me of Far and Away but I do like Baz.

[polaris]

I think risky career choices need to be counterbalanced by a few out and out home-runs.

I see your point. If I was Nicole Kidman, this is probably how I would think. But since I am not, I can keep harboring unreasonable expectations that NK should only make films that appeal to me .

No star is too big or too talented to fade, imho.

This is true, sadly. But it is out of our hands, and there is no point worrying about it. In this sense, I don't consider myself a typical fan of any movie star. Even if NK fades tomorrow, she would still have a better life than most people could dream of. It isn't such a bad thing, IMO.

[gracie]

I see your point. If I was Nicole Kidman, this is probably how I would think. But since I am not, I can keep harboring unreasonable expectations that NK should only make films that appeal to me  .

No star is too big or too talented to fade, imho.

This is true, sadly. But it is out of our hands, and there is no point worrying about it. In this sense, I don't consider myself a typical fan of any movie star. Even if NK fades tomorrow, she would still have a better life than most people could dream of. It isn't such a bad thing, IMO.

Nicole will do what makes her happy. She really enjoys acting and she's good at it so I believe there will always be a place for her on a stage or in a film if that's where she wants to be. As far as what other people perceive about Nicole, that really doesn't matter so much as long as Nicole is doing what makes her happy.
I don't think in her perception she is a "superstar" or any of the superlatives people use describing her. She has a healthy sense of humility. And as far as age is concerned the mindset about women's age is changing...Weren't there three women over 50 nominated for Academy Awards (Streep, Dench and Mirren)? And the Oscar winner for best actress this year, Mirren, is 61 and very beautiful and talented...I believe Mirren will also continue to have a place on stage or in films. Oh, one other thing about Nicole...Steven Spielberg said one never knows what's going on inside her and, he said, "that's endlessly interesting." I think that will continue... Nicole will have her following of fans and admirers for the foreseeable future so I don't think she's going to "fade" so quickly.