Posts Tagged ‘Angelina Jolie’

Short Take: The tagline reads "Who is Salt?" - but does the movie even know?

Director: Phillip Noyce (The Bone Collector)

Screenwriter: Kurt Wimmer (Law Abiding Citizen)

Cast: Angelina Jolie (Wanted, Changeling), Liev Schreiber (Repo Men), Chiwetel Ejiofor (2012, Serenity)

Length: 1h 40m

Synopsis: Evelyn Salt (Jolie) is a CIA operative who was recently rescued from captivity in North Korea. She has a husband, a distinguished career profile, and is looking forward to celebrating her wedding anniversary. Before officially clocking out the night of, however, her superiors ask that she interrogate a man who could possibly be a Russian spy. During the interrogation the man pegs Salt as also being a Russian spy by saying she was his contact in the United States. Not taking chances, the CIA tries to hold Salt but she gets away, leading them on a wild chase that they hope will reveal exactly which side she’s fighting for. Read the rest of this entry »

Gossip magazines like this Photoplay have been around since the dawn of the film industry, but why are they so popular?

For as long as I can remember I have been enormously bewildered as to why so many people find gossip publications like The Inquirer, People Magazine, Star Magazine, and US Weekly so appealing. Beyond having a lack of interest in fashion I fail to recognize the purpose behind holding celebrities’ figures and overall looks under a microscope; praising one on a given week and criticizing them the next. And aside from all of this I also fall short of understanding the undying interest in celebrities’ social and romantic lives. This is not all to say that I consider celebrities uninteresting, quite the contrary, however the sex life of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt is not anywhere near the top million interests I have in the film industry and the people who are part of it.

But why is this? Why do so many people follow the romantic storylines of celebrities’ lives? All judgments aside, because for many the interest is indeed a guilty and harmless pleasure, the answers could lie in the history of the film industry – particularly the history of the “star system.” What is the star system? It started out as a promotional ploy of Hollywood studios to draw audiences and gain their loyalty to them by creating a loyalty to a particular actor or actress. Back in the old days of the industry, actors and actresses were required to sign contracts with a studio that would make them exclusive to that studio (this was an integral part of the studio system). So, if a particular actress proved popular in one picture and wished to do many more, she would sign a contract that would pretty much assure (but not guarantee) her more work, and the studio would exploit her popularity by making her inclusion in a film part of the promotional material (posters and such) in an effort to draw audiences who enjoyed seeing that particular actress. And if she became really popular (like Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn, etc.) she would get all the work she wanted, and even some work she didn’t want (if a star refused to do a project their studio told them to do it could suspend the star’s contract, preventing them from working or being paid). How this all ties together is further explained by Richard Multby in his book Hollywood Cinema. He says, “The studio system was committed to the deliberate manufacture of stars as a mechanism for selling movie tickets, and as a result generated publicity about the stars’ off-screen lives designated to compliment and play upon their screen images” (the “manufacture of stars” pertains to the tendency of studios to make sure their stars maintain a specific, marketable  on-screen persona and personality, complete with mannerisms and quirks. A good example would be Cary Grant). So, during the early days of the industry (primarily 1930s and 1940s) studios actually spurred gossip about their stars in order to reap higher ticket sales.

This all explains a lot about how the market for star gossip became so big, but why did/do readers keep reading? Multby asserts that “the publicity surrounding the star system told its audiences that stars were just like them.” Continuing this idea, he goes on to quote film historian Margret Thorp, who says “The ranking box-office favorites must be good to look at certainly, but they are not required to be creatures of classic perfection. In many ways it is an advantage for a star not to be too beautiful. She stands then closer to the average and that is what the fans want, an ideal they can emulate, a creature not too bright and good, one whose heights they might actually scale themselves with a little energy and a little luck. The glamorous star today is natural [in comparison to yesteryear]. She does not pluck her eyebrows and paint on new ones … she does not try to be a fairy-tale princess but an average girl raised to the nth power. ‘Vivid’ is the adjective she works for hardest.”

Does knowing the personal and intimate details of celebrities' lives make them seem more normal?

So, if audiences like viewing their favorite stars as “normal” people like themselves, then can we assume that those audiences’ interest in stars’ romances and sex lives is due to the idea that knowing these personal aspects makes them seem closer to normal? According to Multby, magazines like Photoplay, Modern Screen, and Shadowland regularly ran articles like “Who is Your Husband’s Favorite Actress and What Are You Going to Do About It?” Attractions were readily admitted, and figuring one’s favorite actor or actress also dealt/deals largely with a star’s glamorous persona. So, paradoxically, we like to envy the glamour of the star status but find it equally important to consider any person with that status to be “normal.” It sounds strange, but makes sense. But this is all still in context of the star system as it was during the years of the studio system (when vertical integration and long-term star contracts existed). Once the ruling of the Paramount case came down in 1948, the studio system was finished and actors and actresses were no longer bound by contracts. They were finally able to pursue work wherever they could find it. This caused the star system to change, but not disappear. Studios still recognized that the stars of their films did the most to sell them, if for no other reason than because the people depicted on-screen were the most visible part of the entire industry. However this also meant studios had much less stock in how actors and actresses were perceived by the public, i.e. fan and gossip magazines. Just like today, if an actress became a “train wreck” she would have a harder time finding a gig. If a star was bad publicity, the studios simply wouldn’t hire them. But this didn’t mean studios no longer had to worry. A modern and infamous example is how Tom Cruise’s unpopularity, due to his professed allegiance to sociology and TV antics, led to reduced box-office numbers for 2006’s Mission: Impossible III. The studio suffered financially, but had no leverage in demanding compensation.

What does Tom Cruise’s instance mean regarding today’s star system? It indicates that the same criteria for a lovable star in old Hollywood is the same as it is today, and fan and gossip magazines still hold as much power as they ever did. It’s easy to envy the glamour of Cruise’s status as an A-list actor, but as was proved with Mission: Impossible III audiences at the time (and debatably now) didn’t consider him “normal,” and so many turned on him. So what is the function of magazines like The Inquirer, People, US Weekly, and Star? They function to indicate what those publications’ readers consider acceptable according to their criteria of what an enviable celebrity should be. They hardly speak for everyone, but because their readership is so big the opinions of them and their following demand to be taken into consideration by Hollywood studios so that they can make more informed business decisions about who to hire and promote. After all, the last thing any studio wants is another Tom Cruise-like incident.

Pfeiffer, in possibly her most popular role as Catwoman in "Batman Returns"

A recent article on RottenTomatoes.com suggested Rachel McAdams might play Black Cat, a burglar/love interest for Peter Parker, in Spiderman 4.  The article got me thinking about the original sexy cat burglar of the Batman comic books, Catwoman.  The question of who would play the sultry seductress has plagued me for years.  Who could beat Eartha Kitt’s sultry purr from the original television series?  Who could look sexier than Michelle Pfeiffer in a leather body suit in Batman Returns?  And most importantly, who could erase the lingering sting Halle Berry’s portrayal left on Batman fans?

The role isn’t easy to fill.  The actress who plays Catwoman needs to have an obvious sexuality that a lecher like Bruce Wayne can barely resist.  But she also has to have a hint of class so she will not seem out of place in his high-powered world.  Finally, she needs to convincingly straddle the line between good guy and bad guy.  Sure she’s ultimately a self-serving burglar who uses her sexuality to stun the guards, but she’s got to be just moral enough for Batman to believe she could be on his side one day.

While McAdams certainly seems capable of delivering the character’s class and questionable morality, she, no offense, just doesn’t have that mildly trashy sex appeal.  Sex is really what Catwoman is about.  Which brings me to the question posed in the title of this piece: how about Megan Fox?  There is no question that she has the sex appeal, as Cliff said in his “What If…” on Fox, she has made her career out of it.  It’s the character’s other components that could be the issue.

Fox’s previous roles haven’t given her much room to show off her acting chops, but what better time than in a role where she can rely on her appearance to do most of the work?  Most comic book films are not noted for their acting, though director Christopher Nolan’s recent interpretations of Batman have certainly changed that, but Fox’s sexuality should at least make her somewhat capable of embodying the character.  The real challenge for her will be playing the normal, Selina Kyle part of the role.

Perhaps Fox’s biggest obstacle would be her age.  She is eight years younger than Christian Bale and still looks more like a juicy piece of jailbait than a mature, professional woman.  A few years ago, Angelina Jolie might have been a shoe-in for the role, but now that she seems determined to be a serious actress, that’s out of the question.  Still, with make-up and the right costuming, Fox could look like a woman in her late twenties.  After the crushing disappointment of loosing Rachel Dawes in the last film, Megan Fox as Selina Kyle may be just the hot young thing to bring Bruce out of his depression.

Maryl Streep as Julia Child in "Julie and Julia"

An article on HollywoodReporter.com, written by Steven Zeitchik, talks about how up to this point in time in the Oscar race very few actresses have made much of an impression. Maryl Streep will likely be nominated (yet again) for her role as Julia Child in Julie and Julia, and Zeitchik claims that only two other leading actresses (Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe for An Education and Precious) have a shot at taking home the gold statuette.

One possible reason that Zeitchik postulates deals with the kinds of roles available for women in mainstream Hollywood. Independent films (such as An Education and Precious) offer many more dynamic, “serious” leading roles for women than Hollywood does (the reasons for which are up for speculation), but being in an independent flick doesn’t downgrade one’s performance in the eyes of the award voters. The Academy is not averse to giving the Best Leading Actress award to a “new face,” so-to-speak (ex. Jennifer Hudson, Marion Cotillard, etc.). Zeitchik later argues that unless you’re the likes of Angelina Jolie or Hillary Swank it’s hard for a woman to land a “serious” part in mainstream Hollywood. So shallow is the Oscar nomination pool for leading actresses, Zeitchik says, that Sandra Bullock is getting award buzz (for her role in The Blind Side).

Those who don’t think much of this year’s lack of standout performances by leading actresses chalk the issue up to the cyclical nature of each category, while some others speculate that it relates to bigger (supposed) issues like Hollywood making less award-worthy films. Zeitchik attempts to debunk such a speculation by noting that the Best Leading Actor category is overflowing with quality nomination possibilities (ex. George Clooney, Colin Firth, Jeff Bridges, Jeremy Renner, etc.).

You can read the full article here, which includes other related topics such as the possibility for three women to be nominated for Best Director, which is an unprecedented feat.

Quick Opinion: I can’t be certain that the number of quality leading roles for women in Hollywood is going down, if for no other reason than because it’s a more complex issue than one might think at first. Sure, maybe this year’s crop isn’t all that extensive, but last year saw 5 great actresses in the nomination pool, which led to hugely diverse speculation before the awards show about who was going to win. And being that Hollywood is still a big supporter of patriarchal ideology (for better or worse), there is and probably always will be plenty of quality leading roles available for men. Who’s to say, though, that there simply aren’t a lot of good scripts with great leading roles for women making the rounds around Hollywood? Script ‘X’ may have a dynamite female lead character, but if its overall story stinks then it doesn’t matter. Studios don’t typically buy works-in-progress. In any case, why would they take a chance on a lousy script just to satisfy a male/female ratio of leading roles? I’m all for equal representation of the sexes in the arts, but the film industry is a business (the biggest financial risk-takers being Hollywood studios) and if it were to adopt some brand of affirmative action to assure such equality I would speculate that the industry would suffer both financially and artistically. Simply put, you can’t tell an industry dealing in creativity what to create.