When I was home for Thanksgiving, I managed to squeeze in one movie in an actual theatre with Jon. We went to go see Fur, this thing about Diane Arbus, starring Nicole Kidman. It's directed by Steven Shainberg, who also did the adaptation of Mary Gaitskill's short story Secretary. And Secretary is a movie that I really love. It's one of the warmest, yet least sentimental love stories I can remember seeing on film. And it's quirky and tortured and deadpan in a way that makes me happy. Fur, however, takes on the very curious subject matter of ye olde circus freak photographer, Diane Arbus-- and should have been another good, solidly weird movie, especially because it makes a big show of how it's not just another biopic, how it's an imaginary portrait of Arbus' inner life. But I'm convinced that some of the spirit of films like this leaks out when the lead role is filled by someone who is just too damn famous--and famous for being gorgeous. I have nothing against Nicole Kidman... over the years, I have enjoyed several of her movies. However, I remember reading somewhere (the New Yorker, maybe?) when Closer came out that Natalie Portman presented a unique challenge to any director as she was really just growing into her beauty and her womanhood at that moment of the article. The challenge is that, when you're that beautiful, it's hard to keep the movie-- and every shot, every camera angle therein-- from being only about how beautiful the star is. It's like physical attractiveness is so distracting that it's hard for a director, camera and/or audience to focus on anything else. And perhaps the problem is that Kidman never lost her statuesque, willowy Kidman-ness in this part... she's just Nicole in '50s circle skirts and ballet flats. She's just not weird enough to be Arbus! And Shainberg didn't find the same kind of weirdness in her that he did in Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary, either, and so, the whole movie suffers.
I think I noted a similar problem in Frida, the Julie Taymor venture with Salma Hayek about Frida Kahlo. I REALLY wanted to like this movie. I think Taymor is a friggin' genius-- her painterly landscape alone in Titus was enough to win me over. I mean, this woman is a professional puppeteer who's got a real oddball sensibility. And, likewise, Frida herself was not exactly mundane or average in any way. And yet, because Hayek was the driving (financial) force behind getting the movie made int he first place, she was cast in the part... and her acting was simply not adequate to pull off anything but a spry, sexy cheerleader version of the limping, unibrowed artist! And so, that movie, too, was a big bore.
All this said, I really do want to see a pretty woman play a good weirdo. I think Cameron Diaz did a bang-up job in Being John Malkovich but, that character hardly had a historical source. And they really had to ugly her up to do it. So, readers, I offer a challenge: Can anyone help me think of a really hot woman playing a convincing freak? A movie in which the camera's problematically male gaze doesn't linger on the candlelit glow of the pretty girl's face for just a little too long? A movie in which the actress can be both pretty and a misfit at the same time... but have the movie not be about the prettiness? I'm sure it exists... but somehow I'm only thinking of more and more examples like Fur and Frida. I feel like I'm running a risk here of sounding like I begrudge these women their beauty.. but that's not really what I'm after. In fact, I think the notion of a drop dead gorgeous, completely loony, idiosyncratic character would be the sort of thing I'd stay up all night thinking about. The idea of a character having a very normal (even an exceptionally appealing) outward persona that is in drastic contrast with said character's inner life... well, I gotta see that movie! And I'm not talking about the beautiful, mysterious, tortured woman. I mean, where's a beautiful freak--perhaps one who enjoys her freakishness, even? Surely... surely it exists.
I wonder if Parker Posey counts?
18 comments:
Monster, Monster--Charlize Theron . . . very beautiful, very scary and very much a freak in Monster--and a compelling one at that. Whether you like her or not (or think she is beautiful or not) she is a true chameleon.
I agree that Kidman poses a problem--but part of it isnt' just being beautiful--its that she's one of those actors who carries with her, into each role, so much of . . . herself. Like Clooney--no matter how good he is there is always a part of Clooney in each character that never changes. His personality, in many cases (if not all), overpowers each character he plays. He could never play a part and have you forget he is Clooney playing that part. Maybe its just part of being very famous, but part of it is definitely something else (maybe being too beautiful as you put it). He is so Clooney, Kidman is so Kidman, Cruise is so Cruise. I would argue that her counterpart in Fur, Robert Downey Jr., is not one of those whose personality overpowers his characters, despite being quite famous and having a pretty strong persona himself.
See my comments on the post below re: Charlize Theron and Monster. I don't think that movie counts towards what I'm talking about here because she's anything BUT beautiful in that movie. and if they have to ugly you up to show your freak, well, then, make-up is doing a lot of work there that the actor then doesn't have to. And I think I mean, perhaps, someone who's just weird and quirky, not someone whose psyche has been hopelessly mangled as is the case with that character.
But I completely agree with you that some actors carry with them on off-screen persona that infiltrates every single friggin' character they play. I think Clooeny came closest to evading his in O Brother, Where Art Thou?-- but even there, he smirks in a distinctly Clooney-esque manner now and again.
Robert Downey Jr.-- though I find him decidedly HOT-- and he's curiously becoming moreso, the older and more wizened he becomes-- he is still first and foremost a character actor, and not so much a leading man. His acting chops are just better than many of the folks who initially got famous for being pretty and then just happened to be able to act in a resonalbly convincing manner on the side.
Oh, I do love him. I wish he'd get really good and sober, move to DC and give me his business card at a bar. Have I mentioned how much I hate this city's version of a "singles scene"? It's so American Psycho... and that terrifies me!
okay, now that i think about it-theron doesn't play a beautiful and crazy character in monster--just crazy.
how about kidman and julianne moore in the hours? they tried to make kidman look plain but it didn't work. julianne moore might be your lady--she was very crazy in the hours, desperate and crazy in magnolia. she plays great crazies and is still pretty doing it.
a) I don't think they were trying to make Kidman look ugly in The hours-- just like Virginia Woolf-- who was a little unusual-looking but not ugly.
b) yes, Julianne Moore is beautiful and sadly depressed in that movie but she's not joyfully quirky. I'm talking about someone for whom their outward appearance functions almost like a real disguise for the actual oddity that resides within-- and not necessarily tragic oddity, though pain often accompanies it. I think Natalie Portman (who seems to be my go-to example girl lately) comes closest to what I'm thinking about in Garden State... or maybe Parker Posey in Best In Show or House of Yes. I mean, gloriously loony weirdoes who happen to be cute, too... But I wanna see it in a more serious drama than in comedic movies like those I've jsut listed. I want to see some venue in which that type of woman is taken seriously, you know? Without having her become tragic? Is it possible?
julianne moore in magnolia is really good and crazy, but she is tragic.
another character in that movie that is quirky and crazy-in a very entertaining and charming way is Melora Walters. she is definitely not tragic. maybe that one is closer to what you are talking about.
but you sound like you are talking about something pretty specific.
i forgot a rather obvious one--although i would say again you sound like you are describing something pretty specific--
Catherine Deneuve in Roman Polanski's Repulsion. It is about her mental collapse inside her NY apartment. Difficult to watch, but good cinema. One of those I call a headache movie. Its been several years since I've seen it.
I'm sure you would be turned off by Polanski's decidedly male perspective. He's a voyeur, you know. Despite that I think it may be right up your alley--you should rent it.
Oh, Polanski... he's just all dark and twisty, isn't he? I don't know that a male perspective is always a bad thing... but, but, but, well, I've been round and round about all the ways in can be problematic. I don't remember a Melora Walters character... but it's been a long time since I've seen it.
You need to see down in the valley if you haven't.
Hello, anonymous. Yes, I posted about the movie just a couple of weeks ago... FANtabulous!
I have a third Julianne Moore one-- in The Big Lebowski--its a comedic role but she is weird and quirky and hilarious and not to be taken serious at all--remember the character? she was a whacko
i'd also like to send a shout out to anonymous, whoever you are. this one's for you, anonymous--surely, the world could use one (or maybe even two) more like you.
"A witty saying proves nothing."
--Voltaire
Poor Anonymous. Clearly he or she does not have a functioning scrolling mechanism on his/her mouse... because my Down in the Valley post is still at the bottom of the screen.
Anyway, didn't Julianne Moore have a fairly significant S&M vibe in that movie? Maybe it's that brunette bob thing that always makes me think "Story of O" for some reason. Anyway, dominatrices, are often, yes, both odd and beautiful... as least as far as stock supporting cast roles go.
she plays a feminist charicature who straps herself up naked to a pulley system then releases herself screaming and throwing paint at the canvas below. i don't think she is a dominatrix, but considering her little painting get-up i can see how that's how you remember her.
she also has a hilarious fake english accent--that film is a classic
any idea who anonymous is?
I really think the haircut is the most dominatrix-y thing about her. But that is probably associative thinking on my part.
Anonymous, obviously, is a faceless, nameless, mysterious, but effortlessly compelling Evan Rachel Wood fan. I love that guy (girl?)!
Sorry to have missed the obvious. I agree with your post on Down in the Valley entirely. I can only defend myself by saying that my premature recommendation was at least consistent with your expressed taste in movies. Oh, and I love you too.
i don't think moore's character in lebowski had a fake british accent. i always thought it was that high falutin' northeastern thing. katharine hepburn or jackie O accent. now pretty much a dead accent.
You know what's a really great dead (or at the very least dying) accent that I really miss? That Eudora Welty uppity Southern thing. Man, I think I'm gonna go around slurring my R's just to try to bring it back. I could be a real Suh-thuhn Lay-dee!
Yay, Anonymous loves me. *sigh*
It's the least I can do.
Post a Comment