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?

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.")

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.

...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.

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, 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. 

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

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

Thanks to all who contributed. That is really an awesome and disconcerting photograph of NK. It looks like something Diane Arbus might have done herself.

Pat Bosworth appears to be taking a cautionary position about the film, and one wouldn't blame her for being concerned about whether the film does justice to the subject matter or not. She says that the essence of Arbus is there, but seems quite guarded about it. Nice to know from her (first-hand) that NK left her a message acknowledging her gift. It was a good thing to do, and shows that NK takes her work, her opportunities and her connections seriously.

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><

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

thank you red!    i remembered the biography thread and ran down this description, which i find engaging:
like it or not mr. thompson, you're a fan. 

How To Sell Your Soul for the Cover of Vanity Fair!
Bill Robinson
Mon Jul 10, 1:04 AM ET
...
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.
...
here's the link to the whole article: Vanity Fair Cover Issue

Kiki, thanks for the article.   

I believe sincerity is the key to people’s hearts.  IMHO, Nicole’s interviews worked because she revealed herself in her interviews; at least that’s what has been keeping me intrigued.  She is always so open about herself - her feelings, her reflections, her values, her acting philosophy etc.  Her openness about herself allows readers to identify themselves with her in many circumstances.  Her thoughts on acting have been an eye-opening revelation to me.  Many times, reading or watching her interviews made me feel like she was showing me her growing process and leading me to her wonderland of acting.

I think “revealing dirt” may get people’s attention at first, but it won’t keep their interests long.  My first impression on Ms. Swank’s VF cover was pure shock and my aftershock reaction was "I am not going to read that interview."

Not many celebrities think or talk the way NK does, that's why it irritates me to no end when her words are twisted just so they read or sound sensational.  It is almost as if her thoughts cannot be handled.  It is only recently that I have read three articles, one in the Times where a columnist read her LHJ article and applauded her for being one of the straightest talking celebs out there, someone who speaks sincerely without drama and sees life how it should be seen, the other article 2 were written during the wedding, where one columnist said NK has always remained the same, she hasn't compromised herself just so she would be liked, the other one praised her for speaking out about being a single mother, who has a certain status and how that affects the matters of the heart and how she was able to meet someone and get married the way she did. 
I just saw her Diane Sawyer article of 2003 when promoting Cold Mountain, Sawyer asked her if she was happy and she quoted a wonderful phrase from The Hours, explained what it meant and how she takes life.  She didn't proclaim that "yes, I am happy." as most celebs would have done, simply because they like to be seen as always in a great place.  She is always very honest, quite realistic in her interviews, she is one of the few non-mannequins out there in celeb land. 
Like Isabel in PoaL, if she wants to cry, she will cry, if she feels like smiling, she will smile and if not then she won't.  That's life. 
I always say some celebs will do well to read what she says and watch how she does things.  She is one of the best role models of today, if I may say so, one who carries herself with dignity and the way she carries herself in public, I believe her family are always proud of her.

I am reading the article and thinking about  that point of view.
Thanks you for your quotation! I am so lazy to find the old post. Yours helped me a lot.

i'm pleased to have missed ms. swank's vf interview. 

you're welcome!    i give the nku search feature a workout.

i loved nicole on david letterman when promoting bewitched!  dave put her on the spot with questions about russell crowe and an ex and she handled herself beautifully.  she mentioned getting herself in hot water, but her very girlish "daaayyyve" and giggle were endearing and when pressed, she talked about being there for a good friend and being happy for an ex if he's in love.  she has a way of revealing just enough about herself, but if she feels cornered, she's not afraid to say "let's move on."  i've yet to see nicole say or do anything to embarrass herself or her family.

i'm pleased to have missed ms. swank's vf interview. 

On the other hand, the interview with Sheryl Crow was interesting and worth the read - she seems to have taken a page from Nicole's book (I've never read any earlier interviews with Ms. Crow) and she steadfastly refuses to dish dirt on her break-up with Lance Armstrong, although the interviewer pokes and prods and needles her about it.  She is however honest about the trauma and hurt of going through cancer on top of the breakup, and so Sheryl comes off with an admirable and discreet dignity that much reminds me of Nicole's interviews during the "divorce" phase of her life. (And the interviewer was inadvertently more honest than usual about making attempts to "get at the truth".  As if it were ANYONE'S business or right to know.  I don't think "emotional trauma and scandal" is covered by the Freedom of Information Act.)

Ditto that, Texas. Talk about selling your soul. I guess it's easier for someone like Nicole to garner a cover but the less compelling Swank shouldn't have betrayed her ex so. I would think it might hurt his career further - and all for a magazine.

i wonder if she consciously sold her soul for the cover, was lured into a false sense of security by the interviewer, or was looking for public validation by shifting the blame for the demise of her marriage from her career to her husband?  regardless of her motives, the damage is done and she looks suspect.

On the other hand, the interview with Sheryl Crow was interesting and worth the read - she seems to have taken a page from Nicole's book (I've never read any earlier interviews with Ms. Crow) and she steadfastly refuses to dish dirt on her break-up with Lance Armstrong, although the interviewer pokes and prods and needles her about it.  She is however honest about the trauma and hurt of going through cancer on top of the breakup, and so Sheryl comes off with an admirable and discreet dignity that much reminds me of Nicole's interviews during the "divorce" phase of her life. (And the interviewer was inadvertently more honest than usual about making attempts to "get at the truth".  As if it were ANYONE'S business or right to know.  I don't think "emotional trauma and scandal" is covered by the Freedom of Information Act.)

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.

One of my pet peeves is seeing NK being referred as "bimbo".     The other pet peeve is when I see some articles continue to refer to her as a “starlet”.   

I wouldn't say Swank was new to the game, she's done enough of these things to know when and how to handle them, I should think, sometimes people just don't know how to guide or guard their tongues.

She's certainly new to getting a cover for that magazine. She probably had to promise some serious dish in order to get it. That takes some guts and shows just how ambitious she is. Not that the woman isn't already successful with two Oscars but she's never viewed as ultra feminine considering her Oscar roles. This is an image make over but to what end...

Sorry, scarlett, I already deleted my post.

Now you've lost me...what post and why?  Oh never mind - I see you've taken out what I've responded to. Do you want me to remove my post with your comments?

Research gives celebrities a star role
Lara Sinclair
27jul06

FPC'S Star magazine may have crashed to earth two months ago but publishers remain convinced there are still undiscovered life forms on planet celebrity.

Northern & Shell Pacific is about to relaunch its celebrity-centric title OK! as a weekly after originally launching it in September 2004 as a monthly.

Chief executive and publisher Andrew Cowell declined to make circulation predictions for the weekly edition, but as a monthly OK! sells about 78,000 copies. "When we launched in Australia, we developed the market and we expect to do exactly that as a weekly," Cowell said.

Northern & Shell, which also launched OK! as a monthly in Britain in 1993 before taking it weekly three years later, will name the relaunch date in the next two months.

OK! is one of the few celebrity-friendly magazines, along with Time Inc South Pacific's In Style, that avoids rumour and speculation of the "a close friend said" variety, preferring to run generally favourable interviews with the stars.

Yesterday Time Inc launched research that not only explains why publishers are continuing to invest in celebrity magazines but also goes some way towards explaining why we are so obsessed with particular Hollywood stars.

The project, which Who Weekly's US sister title People may replicate, included interviews with 12 focus groups and an online survey of 2500 Australian women aged between 18 and 44.

According to research and strategy director Mark Chesterfield, Australian women use celebrities, defined mostly as Hollywood A-list, to pinpoint communities of people with whom they identify.

"In the past community was about neighbourhoods or political affiliation," Chesterfield said. "For Australian women, celebrity is a new community. Celebrities have even come to represent a social conscience.

"Celebrities are a way to start a conversation with others who are like-minded," he said.

The research showed women could be segmented into five groups according to the celebrities they liked and the reasons they identified with them: socialisers, stylists, straight shooters, insecures and hopefuls.

Socialisers, who read magazines for news and gossip and identify with celebrities such as Reese Witherspoon, Angelina Jolie and Heath Ledger, were the largest group.

Stylists want the latest fashion look, are interested in diets and fitness and are influential in recommending new products to others. They favour Mischa Barton, Jennifer Aniston, Orlando Bloom and David Beckham.

Straight shooters, characterised by a feeling of being in control of their busy lives, prefer in-depth interviews with their favourite stars, who included Nicole Kidman and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

For the insecures, who love seeing celebrities at their most real, favourites include Sandra Bullock and television relationships guru Dr Phil McGraw.

A fairytale theme ran through the last group, the hopefuls, who were older women obsessed by royalty and who are apparently driving the popularity of soapie star-turned-tennis-wife Bec Hewitt and Britney Spears.

Chesterfield said our obsession with celebrities was a significant social shift rather than a passing fad. "They are powerful because they sell product and they sell media," he said.

Time will use the segmentation research to recommend its celebrity titles Who and In Style to advertisers and to help clients understand which celebrities their audience relates to.

It can also be overlaid with Roy Morgan data to identify other media the groups consume.

Time managing director David Burkett said the research would also be used to help fine-tune its editorial products, which are competing in an increasingly crowded market.

While Star folded after six months, with FPC Magazines opting against the sizeable marketing investment needed to make it work, other publishers say the appetite for celebrity gossip continues unabated.

Local magazines that devote substantial coverage to Hollywood celebrities include New Idea, NW, Who, Famous, OK! and Woman's Day.

With the exception of new entrant Famous, which has confirmed it will release audited sales figures in August, each of them increased circulation in the year to December, ranging from 2.1 per cent for Woman's Day to 7.6 per cent for New Idea.

Despite rumours that it is suffering from a lack of sales traction, sources said Pacific Magazines' Famous, which was launched in February, was selling about 90,000 copies an issue. Rivals said that was still about 50,000 short of where it needs to be to make a profit. Other publishers are probing a variety of niches expected to include a celebrity component.

Emap is expected to launch fashion-led weekly Grazia here after a new managing director -- replacing Rob Monro-Hall, who will return to Britain later this year -- is in place.

ACP's rumoured plans to launch another weekly are believed to have been put on hold while the company undergoes cost-cutting under new chief executive Ian Law.

But according to ACP Magazines commercial director Tim Trumper, more frequent contact with celebrities, boosted by the availability of information, is driving growth in advertising categories from retail to fashion, cosmetics and accessories.

"It's about what a celebrity was wearing last night and how can I get that look quickly," Trumper said.

In general, advertisers need no convincing that celebrities register strongly with consumers. Cosmetics companies such as L'Oreal regularly invest millions of dollars to sign celebrities such as actors Sarah Jessica Parker and Halle Berry to promote their products.

A global study released by ACNielsen earlier this week paired celebrities with the types of products they were considered most suitable to sell.

Kidman was identified with luxury wear and designer watches while Jolie was paired with lingerie and sunglasses. Brad Pitt, it appears, can sell almost anything to anyone. And he may well do so: according to American author Thomas Mucha, one in five advertisements now feature celebrities, up from one in 10 in 1995.

One of my pet peeves is seeing NK being referred as "bimbo".     The other pet peeve is when I see some articles continue to refer to her as a “starlet”.   

Thanks to all three of you, Livia, Centergirl and Foxy for the scans--seems like we've been waiting forever for this movie, and waiting a few more months won't hurt me--just builds up the anticipation.  This is exciting!  Three days before her movie is released, Keith is releasing his new album!  Does anyone think we might be lucky enough to see both of them sitting side beside at some of the late night talk shows promoting her movie and his album--that would be too good to hope for, but I bet these shows would pay top dollar to have them both on there--their ratings would go over the moon!

Thanks to all three of you, Livia, Centergirl and Foxy for the scans--seems like we've been waiting forever for this movie, and waiting a few more months won't hurt me--just builds up the anticipation.  This is exciting!  Three days before her movie is released, Keith is releasing his new album!  Does anyone think we might be lucky enough to see both of them sitting side beside at some of the late night talk shows promoting her movie and his album--that would be too good to hope for, but I bet these shows would pay top dollar to have them both on there--their ratings would go over the moon!