I've read several UK reviews of Fur so far, and even the ones that seem to dislike the film, are mostly giving Nicole's performance outstanding notices. In The Times said she gave another "standout performance", the Evening Standard said Kidman's performance is what keeps the movie alive. Empire Magazine singles out Kidman for giving a brilliant performance. Time Out magazine said Kidman "exuded a fluttery, neurotic excitement". So far, she's getting more praise than Robert Downey jr, which was the opposite in many American reviews.

It's already in stark contrast to many of the agenda laden American reviews, several of which seemed primarily focused on knocking Kidman off her critically acclaimed pedestal.

Another interesting contrast is the UK reviews of Cate Blanchett's performance in The Good German, which was released last week. In America, where Blanchett can seemingly do no wrong these days (according to several critics), Blanchett got mostly strong reviews for her performance in The Good German, even though the movie itself bombed with critics. In Britain however, where Blanchett is not treated with the same unquestioned reverence, her performance has mostly been critically panned, along with the movie. Many UK critics have noted Blanchett's "ridculous accent "and affected mannerisms. Empire magazine (which praised Kidman in Fur) said this about Blanchett's performance in The Good German; "Under a mask of make-up, Blanchett fares little better, invoking Deitrich and Garbo, but delivering nothing approaching a rounded, believable character".

The contrast is stark. In America, many critics will use any excuse to nitpick Kidman's performances (had Kidman given the exact same performance as Blanchett in The Good German, I shudder to think how much of a negative reaction she might have gotten from certain American critics in "backlash" mode, like Emannuel Levy or Armond White, the professional Kidman hater). Wheras in America, certain critics are ready to designate Blanchett the ONLY heir apparant to Meryl Streep, to the point where she has almost become immune to serious criticism (I may be paranoid, but I've always felt that many view Kidman as a serious threat to Blanchett's pre-eminence as the greatest actress of their generation. It's not just critics. The Australian actress Kerry Armstrong, felt the need to diminsh Kidman's talents, in order to bolster her support for Blanchett).

British critics are (for the most part) somewhat different. There is no clear agenda against any actress (unless they really, really suck). And no unquestioned reverence (unless you're one of the esteemed British Dames, ie Mirren or Dench).So the critical playing field is pretty level for most performers. Which is why Kidman is still getting her due in Britain for her work in Fur, and Blanchett isn't being treated like an acting genius simply for showing up in The Good German with another clipped accent. Kidman has recieved negative performance reviews in Britain before, but I've never felt there was an orchestrated critical backlash against her in the UK, which I feel their is in parts of the American critical establishment.

I believe Kidman and Blanchett are probably the two stand-out actresses of their generation. This year will be interesting for both. Blanchett will undoubtedly get praised to the skies by American critics for her roles in 2007 (The Golden Age and the Bob Dylan movie), because she gets a very easy ride in comparison to Nicole in the states (who seems to earn to some resentment for her movie star lifestyle, statuesque glamour and 17 million dollar paydays).

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.

I am with you. I've posted a few UK Fur reviews under the Fur forum. The brilliant, subtle performances aren't working for the American critics, Emanuel Levy, Ella Taylor and a few others have actually come out and said that they are tired of it and would like to see some big, operatic performances from her. I just ignore White altogether, he doesn't critique her work, he just insults, deride and belittle her. He is the Sudhev of the US.

Golden Compass should give them that, Margot at The Wedding should also be riddled with dialogue considering it is a Baumbach movie and Invasion should be another change of pace, I don't know why I am not worried about it, it will be what it is. There is nothing wrong with reshoots except for the fact that it rubs egos the wrong way. Zodiac was reshot on and off last year and it turned out fine, all a movie needs is the confidence of its producers, the success or failure of this movie rests with Warner Bros. They should add, remove things to it if need be, it won't be released until August. The bad buzz that the tabloid media tried to generate a few weeks ago is nowhere to be heard, once Warner brings puts out a strong trailer for it, noone will remember the buzz. It's a $60m movie, it should make its money back with good promotion.

I am counting on some NK worship this year.

Totally agree with you Hamlet!

LOL!

You're totally right about White. The guy is an ignoramus. His reviews of Nicole's work are so filled with venom and personalised animus, that he's got zero creditbility when it comes to judging her work.

As for Invasion...I'm not worried about it making it's money back. As much as people don't want to give her credit for her drawing power, her last 3 wide release studio movies have all had 20 million dollar + opening weekends. And her films make cash internationally. But still, I don't want to see her with another critical failure, even if it is a commercial success. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I'm also counting on some NK worship this year. I'm probably getting ahead of myself, but the possibility of double Oscar nominations (supporting for The Golden Compass, lead for Margot At The Weddding) seems to be the most realistic a consideration as it's been for several years. Hopefully, she'll at least get her 3rd nomination.

3 critically acclaimed movies will be fantastic but 2 out of 3 aren't so bad, but like you, I am hoping for 3 out of 3!

You are thinking of double nominations, too? so am I, . I've been thinking about it for months, . She will be out there this year, I can feel it, and it will start with Cannes.

I never reply to posts I read on here but feel compelled to write after reading this.
In your enthusiasm for good reviews of Nicole Kidman's work I really wish you hadn't gone down the path of denigrating another fine actress.
To dismiss her work with a sentence like" simply turning up with another clipped accent" makes you appear petty and as one eyed as you say the American critics are.
Don't be fooled into thinking that the English critics have no agenda, whilst it is great that they appreciate Shainbergs Fur don't think for an instant that they aren't incensed about Soderbergh having the gall to make a European story. And don't ever think that the brits don't look down on us Aussies.
As for Blanchetts accent. I was at the Berlin Film Festival earlier this year where The Good
German made it's European debut. She was roundly praised in the German press for her flawless accent and indeed for invoking images of Deitrich. I think they may know what they are talking about.
I say, judge for yourself, there is room on the world stage for both of these women. They don't seem to have a problem with it so neither should you.
And incidently, Kerry Armstrong is a personal friend of mine, she has never said anything bad about Nicole Kidman, she was taken out of context. It happens all the time.
Remember the fuss about Nicole supposedly criticising Angelina Jolie? why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Ceej—thank you for your intelligent and reasonable post. I haven't posted here before either, as I am interested in discussion more than praise and fear getting booted.
However this topic is the perfect opportunity for respectful and thoughtful debate, and you took the words right out of my mouth.
Thank you !

well its glad to know that she is getting noticed for it. I have no idea what is with the American Critics.. but I'm in love with her work. It's truly spectacular

I always thought this movie would do better in Europe. I think it even did better in Canada than in the States. In my local paper, the reviewer gave it good marks and praised her performance.

Subtled performances are, by nature, harder to quantify than boisterous or angry performances. So knocking a subtle performance, and looking like one knows something, is better than saying nothing and appearing ignorant.

What I found with Birth is that many of the critics didn't even understand the movie but still gave a review. When it is obvious that the reviewer doesn't even understand the movie, I don't even give it two thoughts.

Many "american" reviewers couldn't even get past the "imaginary portrait" part. Therefore, I didn't pay attention to those reviews either.

I enjoyed this movie very much. Yes it is slow and quirky but to me those are bonuses.

I find that many critics complain about getting the "same old same old" but when something different comes along they dump all over it. Go figure.

I don’t think a post that called a fellow NKU member petty is intelligent or reasonable. Hamlet was basically quoting what most UK critics said about Blanchett’s performance in The Good German. If you have read the post more carefully, you would see that Hamlet regards Kidman and Blanchett the two stand-out actresses of their generation; he/she was just not impressed with Blanchett’s performance in The Good German. I happen to agree with Hamlet on this and most of the points in his/her post. Blanchett (and Kate Winslet) has an easy ride here in the U.S. from celebrity blogs to film critics. I have read Hamlet’s previous posts before and I always consider his/her comments more intelligent and observing than most professional critics.

Actually I wrote "appear petty". No name calling at all.
I read the post quite carefully before replyiing and could actually not find where they had seen the film themselves.
They were quoting the UK critics and I in turn was quoting the German ones. Simple really.

So saying someone “petty” is name calling but saying someone “appears petty” is not name calling. Thanks for giving me an English lesson. I’ve seen most of Blanchett’s films and so far I was only impressed by her performance in Elizabeth. Each to his or her own.

Hamlet, i make your words mines!I agree with everything you said.
Fur just arrived this week to Portugal, and i had the pleasure of see it last night.
I'm totally fascinated with Nicole's performance, i simply can't understand how those american critics judge wrongly her performance.It's intense, deep and shocking in a good way.I'm not a big fan of the film, but her performance (and believe i'm not saying this because i'm a fan of her) is brilliant!I think it can be compared to The Hours or Dogville!
Nicole is very popular in my country, and the portuguese critics in generall praise her performance, saying that "only Kidman can touch our souls as she did in Fur".
I think this says everytinhg.

I have seen both Fur and The Good German. I agree with the British critics in regards to both performances. I agree that Blanchett stylistically invoked the "image" of Garbo and Dietrich (even the British critics who panned her acknowledged that conceit), but like the whole movie itself, the performance just played like a hollow pastiche of that era, imho. A stylised facsimile. I didn't actually feel anything for any of the characters (including Clooney and Maguire), and that's a big minus for me in a performance. To me, it was Blanchett's most superficial performance of the 3 she gave last year. She was very solid in her limited role in Babel (to be fair, she didn't have much to do but lie in Brad Pitt's arms and groan for most of the film), but I thought she was excellent in Notes On A Scandal, and deserving of her oscar nomination.

Secondly, I think Blanchett is a fantastically talented actress (and I said as much, by pointing out that I consider her and Nicole to be their generation's stand-outs). I just feel that, especially in America, she gets a much easier ride, in critical terms, and I felt that it was a valid point of comparison (especially as both their movies were released within a week of each other in Britain).

In terms of critics "agendas", I wasn't talking about the films themselves (critics always have agendas when it comes to actual movies). But the performers. Fur is recieving quite a few 2 star "so-so/interesting failure" reviews in Britain, so the reviews for the film itself aren't significantly better than The Good German. What's notable about the British reviews for Fur, imho, is that Kidman isn't getting any major negativity in regards to her own performance. She's getting kudos for her acting and artistic bravery, even from the many who dislike the film. Wheras with certain American critics, you could almost hear the knives sharpning for Kidman herself when they realised she had made another "difficult" movie. For whatever reason, certain American critics and beginning to resent Kidman's prominence among the acting elite, and are doing their best to undermine the perception of her abilities.

When it comes to performers, I don't think British critics have any "agenda" either for or against either Kidman or Blanchett. If they think either gives a performance that warrants praise, they'll give praise. If they think either gives a performance that warrants derision, they'll deride. I don't think British critics take glee in panning Blanchett's work in The Good German, but I do think they judged the performance with a more accurate critical eye than Americans, who have fallen into the extremely lazy habit of declaring anything with Blanchett +vaguely belivable accent=Great performance. American criticism has become ego filled, and laden with agendas, not only against films, but specific performers. You only need to see Jeffrey Welles vicious campaign against Eddie Murphy in the recent oscar race to see how low things are sinking.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to be petty. I just thought (from my point of view), that I was making some pertinent and valid points. If I was actually petty and intent on denigarating Blanchett (instead of a specific performance that I've seen and didn't rate), I really wouldn't waste my breath saying how highly I rate her talent.

As for Kerry Armstrong, if she's a friend of yours...that's interesting. I can only go by what I read, and what she "allegedlly" said about Kidman was the height of pettiness and professional envy. If she was misquoted or taken out of context, then she has my commiserations. But I find it pretty hard to believe that even in the case of lack of context, that she could have been saying much positive about Kidman. If it was the case, she should have threatened to sue the newspaper that printed the statements for defamation and demand a retraction and apology. The fact that she didn't, probably suggests that she may actually have said some of what was claimed she said. The Angelina Jolie/Kidman thing was cleared up because Kidman did the correct thing when lies and misquotes are used in her name to attack a fellow actor; she got the newspaper (the Scotsman, I think) to apologise and retract the the story. Everything was cleared when that happpened.

I agree. I'd also apply your comment to celebrities that imply (in interviews) that Blanchett is a better mother than Nicole.

Hamlet, very good point there!

It seems like the European critics are quite different from the American in some ways. In my opinion, a lot of the European critics are not afraid of different, smaller movies while the American critics can let that be a large criterion when they review a movie.

OH, silly me, I thought everyone loved Nicole! I personally don't give ANY credence to critics because if they liked it, I probably won't and vice versa.

Ditto That !!!!

Very Interesting reading....................................
I can only say I can hardly wait to see Nicole's Awesome talent ..in the movies as they are released.....

This was from an interview with Emanuel Levy.
I haven't seen too many European films but I assume they're more subtle and for lack of a better word, intellectual? They're character-driven, and would require the film goer to actively think and respond to what they're seeing. More like an abstract painting. Most Americans like them big and showy with the audience being more passive. They want a big landscape painting, with perfect detail and really bright colors. Both forms of film making could be great though. It's just a difference in taste and culture I guess.
It's probably not a surprise that the studio didn't like Hirschbeigel's (?) cut of "The Invasion" because there wasn't much action involved.

Also, some American critics want or prefer character driven movies to be rooted in character motives. I am always astounded when a reviewer writes or says that a movie is faulty or bad because "we do not understand a character's motives" or "we have no character to root for because all the characters are unlikeable". As a filmgoer, I don't get that kind of reasoning at all. The movies I tend to enjoy are very character driven but are not overly showy or loud in their characterisations and most often than not, it is not the character being studied, analysed, it is an idea being studied or analysed.

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

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, .

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.



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.

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

[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.

[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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.



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.

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 .

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.