Meow

[fpb]

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?

Comments

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

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.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

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.)

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

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.