fpb | Meow

Meow

I found Lauren Bacall's outburst against Nicole Kidman just incredibly depressing. Just a matter of who she is. For decades, Lauren Bacall has managed to project an image of aging with class and grace, of being by far the most impressive of the remains of golden-age Hollywood. And in one burst of senile jealousy, she has blown it all: showing herself to be nothing more than one aged actress, foolishly resentful of a much younger, successful and still radiant colleague. And let us be honest: who would ever have cast Nicole Kidman as Lauren Bacall's rival, until, by her unnecessary outburst, Ms.Bacall herself both made her one and handed her the victory?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Don't know the deal between Bacall and Kidman, but can't say I'm very surprised. In my experience women are hard, especially toward each other. :/
It might, of course, just be that the young missy has a nasty personality, and that Bacall is one of the very few to say things out loud? Since I don't know any details it's impossible to say anything, really. I'd give the old lady the benefit of the doubt; after all, emotions are difficult to control and we cannot like everybody we meet.
(That's just my take on it.)

The issue was whether the words "screen legend" could validly be applied to Nicole Kidman. Nothing else. And the thing is that, while I have little sympathy for much of what Kidman says and does (her last movie, BIRTH, is a kind of disguised hymn to female paedophilia), if there is one younger, currently active actress who deserves the title, it is her. Other actresses have come and gone. Where are Gwyneth Paltrow, Kristin Scott Thomas, Rebecca de Mornay, Jodie Foster, even Julia Roberts? Jennifer Lopez and Halle Berry, who both came in later than Kidman, begin to look past their sell-by date; Kidman just ploughs on, moving gracefully towards her fortieth birthday on a tide of cleverly chosen movies, many of which are in effect dogs, but never dogs that harm her reputation. She has indubitably established herself as the premier actress of her generation. The words "screen legend" are subjective, but, unless we want to apply them only to dead people, Nicole Kidman has as good a claim to them as anyone.

She's a good actor, yes, but screen legend...I don't know. As you say, it's subjective. And I should add that I don't really have any strong emotions in this discussion; they can point out whom they like. :) Personally, I would say that a title like that should rather be given to an actor like Meryl Streep...on the other hand, she probably is a legend already.

In this light is does seem a bit silly of Bacall to react so strongly but, I don't know, she might have her reasons.

You are right about Meryl Streep, and I would add Charlotte Rampling. But these are a bit older, and both seem to be doing very little these days. Kidman is still at the height of her career.

Streep is doing productions for TV, I think. The last I saw her in was something called Angels in America, brilliant work. I didn't like her very much earlier, but as I've got older I can see what a marvellous actor she is.
Kidman is at her height, yes, and that's what makes me reluctant to call her a legend. In ten-twenty years, perhaps. She's too young in my eyes; not even Garbo became a legend until after she withdrew from the screen.
I guess it depends what you put in the word legend.

Yeah. My point was just about that particular episode, which actually hurt me. I had used to admire Lauren Bacall.

Of course. I have a tendency to wander off when I comment on things...

And why not? So far as I can see, on LJs this is the name of the game!

It is. ;) Perhaps not the best forum when one wants to discuss difficult issues.

You know, you should get AIM, we could chat some time.

How do you do that? I had it once briefly when I was subscribing to AOL, but I don't know if I can get it without, and I now use another IP.

Nah, I don't use AOL and it worked fine anyway. I'll see if I can find it, and send it in a mail.

Easy-just go to www.aim.com

Bacall was never anything but a mediocre actress anyway, but she has appeared in a large body of work and acquired a screen longevity, although to whatever extent she's a legend pertains as much to her status as Mrs Bogart as to her own work. Saying all that, she has starred in an iconic moment in cinematic history (notably "You know how to whistle"), which arguably conveys certain 'labelling rights'.

Kidman is a decent actress in a narrow range but hasn't got the longevity to be termed a 'legend' and of the roles she has played, very few stick in the memory. Take The Hours for example, whilst she won the Oscar more people remember the prosthetic nose than they do the performance. And how many memorable moments are there starring her?

Bacall made a good point but in a pissy manner.

Oh and Jodie Foster is, in my opinion, a screen legend. Twice an Oscar winner with memorable and notable performances in Taxi Driver, The Accused and Silence of the Lambs. She's one of the few modern actresses who will be remembered by many long into the future.

I was really speaking more about style than anything else. I still think that Ms.Bacall did herself no favours. As for Nicole Kidman, I'll leave you to the tender mercies of her numerous fans. She's not my type anyway.

That's a shame. I greatly admire Lauren Bacall; she's one of the classiest actresses I've ever had the pleasure of watching on the silver screen. I don't know the incident to which you're referring, but it's a shame if she lessened herself by a jealous display.

I respect Nicole Kidman too, she's done some great stuff and has a fair amount of versatility, but I don't think anyone's allowed to be called a "screen legend" until their work has stood the test of time. Twenty years from now, I might consider Kidman a legend. But it still wouldn't occur to me to compare her to Bacall. They might both be actresses, but their work doesn't really compare; apples and oranges.

I guess this is the issue. Of the people who disagreed with me, most had a problem with calling Nicole Kidman a screen legend. I think, however, that she has been at the forefront of her profession long enough to have a claim to the title. And if Ms.Bacall had an issue with that, a resounding silence would have been infinitely more telling than the peevish tones she used.

Agreed. Still, she is eighty years old; peevishness is a priveledge of that age group, even if we fans would prefer the same grace with which she's always distinguished herself.

I certainly think Kidman has a claim to the title, by the way; she's an excellent address. I just think the title of "legend" is premature, though I don't doubt I'll consider her deserving of it in a few more years.

Hello! I'm just lurking - was directed here by Bruno to read your excellent post on the erosion of worker's rights and self-belief, with which I thoroughly agree (we're horribly close to the Victorian mill-owners/slaves equation now, aren't we!)

I was just going to say that many of the "older generation" believe that this generation favours youth and beauty over age and experience - well, 'twas ever thus, especially with actresses, but even so an older woman could comfort herself with the thought that despite the fading of her youth she'd wind up immortalized as a "legend" of the silver screen. So when she hears someone young and beautiful described as a "legend" after winning one Oscar, of course she's going to snort in disbelief. "Legend"? You can't have an "instant legend" any more than you can have an instant classic; the judgement, and the conferring of the title, is posterity's right alone.

So I actually agree with her. That said, I could have wished she'd softened the tone of the attack with "I don't deny Nicole is very talented, I just don't think the word 'legend' is applicable yet!" She could have made her point in a far more tactful and attractive manner than she did. Such a shame.

I suppose you've got a point about the sense of being left behind. I still think, however, that her feelings would have been better expressed with a resounding silence. And I still think that Nicole Kidman is not just anyone - one Oscar or not. (And one Oscar is more than a number of undeniable legends, such as Sir Alfred Hitchcock, ever got.)

Ah, but an Oscar is not an award for merit, it's a popularity contest. Is it possible to argue that Gwyneth Paltrow's performance in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE was "better" than Cate Blanchett's performance in ELIZABETH? "Apples and oranges, you can't compare" doesn't really apply here; one of them was a light role with little depth and the other was a role with numerous complexities, rendered superbly. Blanchett should have won it, no question. But Paltrow looked far prettier, so she got it instead.

And don't we agree that Dench's Best Supporting Actress Oscar - for a 10-minute CAMEO!! - was awarded for political reasons, not for a superlative performance?

Oscars rarely mean anything. And if Nicole Kidman were to drop out of acting now, I'm not sure she'd be a "legend" based on her current body of work. Put it this way - of what I've seen her in, I liked TO DIE FOR and THE OTHERS the best. The first has the feel of a TV-movie that's far better than it ought to be; the second has the feel of a cult-movie, detailed and atmospheric, but, like its close sibling THE SIXTH SENSE, there's not much reason to watch it again once you know the "twist". These aren't "legendary" movies, and no-one ever became a "legend" through appearing in mediocre movies.

Then again, ithat's just my opinion - I haven't seen THE HOURS, and maybe that's a masterpiece.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Meow

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject