Posts Tagged ‘Angelina Jolie’

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.