Hollywood Doesn’t Know What to Do With Angelina Jolie
May 16, 2021 10:17 PM Subscribe
She’s always been an A-lister. But her new film, Those Who Wish Me Dead, reflects Hollywood’s impulse to stifle female action heroes once they hit a certain age. And though she’s continually made the case for herself as an action hero, even now, reviews for Those Who Wish Me Dead question the effect of her “ice-sculpture perfection” on the film’s believability—as if a film featuring Hannah getting hit by lightning needs to be believable—and whether audiences can “get past the miraculously dewy complexion and on-point smoky-eye look.” In the past decade, Jolie has used her fame to elevate the story of the Cambodian Civil War, co-author a book on protest rights geared toward teenagers, and even criticize the United Nations, where she advocates for the rights of refugees. She hasn’t played a seductress since Salt. How are her good looks still such a sore spot?
So that person wringing their hands about whether a character is unbelievable if the actor is too attractive, I guess they've never seen a movie before?
posted by straight at 1:26 AM on May 17, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by straight at 1:26 AM on May 17, 2021 [21 favorites]
We went and saw the movie last Friday, our reaction was rather "meh" - probably should have been a TV movie of the week or so. Littlefinger does a great bad guy though.
posted by mbo at 2:14 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mbo at 2:14 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Even the two quotes from the cited reviews are misleading: both actually praise her performance
Eh, I do actually find that WP review pretty weird and sexist.
posted by trig at 3:06 AM on May 17, 2021 [38 favorites]
Eh, I do actually find that WP review pretty weird and sexist.
In “Those Who Wish Me Dead,” Jolie demonstrates her career-long fascination with action derring-do and physical punishment, to diminishing effectI'm not sure when male actors who've done action movies have been described as having some kind of special fascination with "derring-do and physical punishment" (it's not like she writes her own roles). I'd also have a hard time buying that the writer was using the phrase "hot flashes" without being conscious that it primarily evokes menopause. And yeah, I don't think the sculpted good looks of a Tom Cruise, or Tom Hardy, or Will Smith, or Harrison Ford, or Keanu Reeves, or Anthony Mackie, or [99% of male action movie stars] are generally brought in as a reason to doubt the supposed realism of their action movies. Or, more importantly, the supposed competence of their characters, which to me is the biggest problem.
[...]
Jolie never has a chance to develop beyond a few flashes here and there. Speaking of flashes: They’re hot in “Those Who Wish Me Dead,” but not particularly convincing, nor are the smears of ash and dirt that try but fail to erase Jolie’s ice-sculpture perfection.
posted by trig at 3:06 AM on May 17, 2021 [38 favorites]
My wife (a fan of Jolie's) just told me she and her friends watched this flick a couple nights ago. She was astonished at how puzzling and bad the film was. And this is from my wife, who's usually a pretty forgiving fan of many different movie genres.
posted by SoberHighland at 4:57 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by SoberHighland at 4:57 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is an aside, but I am reading the novel now (at about 3/4 finished) and the book is great. Engrossing and compelling, everything you want in a popcorn thriller. Haven't seen the movie, but I watched the trailer and it looks like they changed quite a bit--Hannah is not the main character in the book. But considering the novelist, Michael Koryta also co-wrote the screenplay, I guess he's okay with it.
posted by zardoz at 5:14 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by zardoz at 5:14 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Wanted, from 2008, featured Jolie prominently in marketing materials, but she was third-billed in the cast.
But damn was she good in Wanted. Such a fun, dark movie.
posted by chavenet at 6:14 AM on May 17, 2021
But damn was she good in Wanted. Such a fun, dark movie.
posted by chavenet at 6:14 AM on May 17, 2021
Watched this yesterday. It was a B movie for sure. Angelina deserves better films. I think she works more as a secret agent type than as a smoke jumper, she is tiny. They even joke about it, Conner calls her skinny. Finn Little, the kid, is a good actor. It was way too violent.
posted by Bee'sWing at 6:30 AM on May 17, 2021
posted by Bee'sWing at 6:30 AM on May 17, 2021
The thing about Jolie that I always think of whenever she gets brought up in things like this is how, for the longest time, she was cast as the villain in the section of the supermarket tabloid readership that was permanently obsessed with Brad Pitt's past marriage to Jennifer Aniston (and maybe still is), and how that may have affected the roles that she gets and how they're received; Maleficent, for example. (There's another Atlantic article that gets at the hypocrisy of her being blamed for the split with Pitt).
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:36 AM on May 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:36 AM on May 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
Actress takes role in a typically culturally regressive genre, resulting in a regressive and trite film. What do we actually expect from these Hollywood Blockbusters?
posted by grokus at 6:58 AM on May 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by grokus at 6:58 AM on May 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
Angelina deserves better films.
As long as she's only acting -- and not wanting to direct -- I suspect Jolie can be in most anything she pleases. For many years she was considered one of the most powerful celebrities -- and actresses -- in the world. Even during those years, the simple fact is that she repeatedly agreed to appear in forgettable picture after forgettable picture. Over the many decades she's been working, I don't think she's ever been in a truly great movie -- certainly nothing that will be remembered decades ahead. No one forced her to be in this movie -- she chose to do so, just as Robert De Niro chooses to be in garbage and Johnny Depp's entire career, imo.
Not every actor has great taste and not every actor decides to hire people who have their best interests in mind.
posted by dobbs at 7:48 AM on May 17, 2021 [11 favorites]
As long as she's only acting -- and not wanting to direct -- I suspect Jolie can be in most anything she pleases. For many years she was considered one of the most powerful celebrities -- and actresses -- in the world. Even during those years, the simple fact is that she repeatedly agreed to appear in forgettable picture after forgettable picture. Over the many decades she's been working, I don't think she's ever been in a truly great movie -- certainly nothing that will be remembered decades ahead. No one forced her to be in this movie -- she chose to do so, just as Robert De Niro chooses to be in garbage and Johnny Depp's entire career, imo.
Not every actor has great taste and not every actor decides to hire people who have their best interests in mind.
posted by dobbs at 7:48 AM on May 17, 2021 [11 favorites]
I don't think the sculpted good looks of a Tom Cruise, or Tom Hardy, or Will Smith, or Harrison Ford, or Keanu Reeves, or Anthony Mackie, or [99% of male action movie stars] are generally brought in as a reason to doubt the supposed realism of their action movies
Fair point. But they didn't look "ice sculpted" in those films. Heck, Harrison Ford already didn't look that way the first time he portrayed Han Solo. Part of the inherent misogny of cinema and celebrity is that men are allowed, perhaps even required to have a bit of cragginess in their looks, especially after they pass a certain age. Otherwise they risk their looks being deemed too immature and/or effeminate for roles requiring a certain grit or gravitas. I don't think anyone would characterize too many male stars of action movies -- especially those out of their 20s -- as "ice sculpted" (which doesn't imply quite the same thing as "sculpted abs"). The high level of polished, youthful smoothness that description implies would better characterize the "pretty," "baby faced," younger male actors that don't tend to get cast in many action movies. I suppose the notable exception is superhero movies, where most actors of either sex present with a sculpted smoothness. That said, while Angelina Jolie doesn't look much like a smokejumper, William Baldwin didn't look much like a firefighter in "Backdraft" either and I don't recall that being a focus of criticism. It's a weird thing: On the one hand, shame on these people for making complaints about Angelina Jolie in a role when those complaints wouldn't be made about a substantially similar male actor. Oh the other hand, shame on Hollywood for not casting realistic and realistically aged women in roles like this that could benefit from the verisimilitude.
posted by slkinsey at 7:55 AM on May 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
Fair point. But they didn't look "ice sculpted" in those films. Heck, Harrison Ford already didn't look that way the first time he portrayed Han Solo. Part of the inherent misogny of cinema and celebrity is that men are allowed, perhaps even required to have a bit of cragginess in their looks, especially after they pass a certain age. Otherwise they risk their looks being deemed too immature and/or effeminate for roles requiring a certain grit or gravitas. I don't think anyone would characterize too many male stars of action movies -- especially those out of their 20s -- as "ice sculpted" (which doesn't imply quite the same thing as "sculpted abs"). The high level of polished, youthful smoothness that description implies would better characterize the "pretty," "baby faced," younger male actors that don't tend to get cast in many action movies. I suppose the notable exception is superhero movies, where most actors of either sex present with a sculpted smoothness. That said, while Angelina Jolie doesn't look much like a smokejumper, William Baldwin didn't look much like a firefighter in "Backdraft" either and I don't recall that being a focus of criticism. It's a weird thing: On the one hand, shame on these people for making complaints about Angelina Jolie in a role when those complaints wouldn't be made about a substantially similar male actor. Oh the other hand, shame on Hollywood for not casting realistic and realistically aged women in roles like this that could benefit from the verisimilitude.
posted by slkinsey at 7:55 AM on May 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
I totally agree with Dobbs above. Also, just because Hollywood in general has a problem with women, doesn't mean that Jolie's problems are due to systemic faults; if any one person could have afforded to break a mould it would have been her. Instead we got... Maleficient 2.
posted by The River Ivel at 7:56 AM on May 17, 2021
posted by The River Ivel at 7:56 AM on May 17, 2021
I'd also have a hard time buying that the writer was using the phrase "hot flashes" without being conscious that it primarily evokes menopause.
Which Jolie went through after having her ovaries and fallopian tubes prophylactically removed in 2015, two years after a preventive double mastectomy, to decrease her chances of cancer by a significant percent. I think people who aren't overinvested don't really remember/understand how furious people were and are at her for making decisions about her body rather than their pantsfeels and I feel like a lot of this shitty review discourse comes down to "how dare" and the revocation of femininity from women who have become un-useful for what is considered primary functions. (And the transphobia that is twinned with that license to femininity additionally lingers over Jolie for seemingly being affirming of her kids' gender expression.)
So basically if you want to figure out why people are so mad at Angelina Jolie, that's a significant part of it. In a bunch of ways she has refused to stay in the box that beautiful women are supposed to exist in. She was supposed to be unintelligent and she couldn't maintain that pretense for very long, she was supposed to be a fantasy but she "ruined" that by prioritizing her health, and then had the gall to not wither into a dusty old crone immediately forthwith.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:26 AM on May 17, 2021 [40 favorites]
Which Jolie went through after having her ovaries and fallopian tubes prophylactically removed in 2015, two years after a preventive double mastectomy, to decrease her chances of cancer by a significant percent. I think people who aren't overinvested don't really remember/understand how furious people were and are at her for making decisions about her body rather than their pantsfeels and I feel like a lot of this shitty review discourse comes down to "how dare" and the revocation of femininity from women who have become un-useful for what is considered primary functions. (And the transphobia that is twinned with that license to femininity additionally lingers over Jolie for seemingly being affirming of her kids' gender expression.)
So basically if you want to figure out why people are so mad at Angelina Jolie, that's a significant part of it. In a bunch of ways she has refused to stay in the box that beautiful women are supposed to exist in. She was supposed to be unintelligent and she couldn't maintain that pretense for very long, she was supposed to be a fantasy but she "ruined" that by prioritizing her health, and then had the gall to not wither into a dusty old crone immediately forthwith.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:26 AM on May 17, 2021 [40 favorites]
Actor quality != actor performance != movie quality. AJ has the Elizabeth Taylor problem; lazy reviewers write for lazy readers about visuals and just compare the past to the future.
She can be a good actress if she's allowed to actually explore a role, but she feels miscast in so many things because the ecosystem keeps playing up not just that she isn't who she was fifteen years ago (none of us are) but that she's supposed to be an A-lister in that she carries a movie like Vin Diesel carries Fast and Furious.
Which he doesn't of course, but she and all the other Hollywood system actresses are still Ginger Rogers - expected to do everything the men do, while looking fabulous, backwards and in high heels.
posted by lon_star at 8:41 AM on May 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
She can be a good actress if she's allowed to actually explore a role, but she feels miscast in so many things because the ecosystem keeps playing up not just that she isn't who she was fifteen years ago (none of us are) but that she's supposed to be an A-lister in that she carries a movie like Vin Diesel carries Fast and Furious.
Which he doesn't of course, but she and all the other Hollywood system actresses are still Ginger Rogers - expected to do everything the men do, while looking fabulous, backwards and in high heels.
posted by lon_star at 8:41 AM on May 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
Otherwise they risk their looks being deemed too immature and/or effeminate for roles requiring a certain grit or gravitas.
I mean, I think that's it right there, or a big part of it. Being "effeminate", or femininely beautiful, or femininely mannered, are seen as being incompatible with grit, and gravitas, and professionalism, and competence. It's bullshit, but it's there.
I think all the reviews saying "she's too beautiful to be a _____" are reflecting two deeply ingrained feelings: one, that women whose looks stand out aren't as serious as less-striking women, and also women in general aren't as serious as men; and two, that beautiful women just wouldn't voluntarily be working in these roles. That they'd "have options", which in reality would translate to trading on their looks and becoming models or rich men's wives. I'm not trying to throw stones here; I've seen this in myself. I -- a woman -- have watched one person who is just ridiculously, ethereally beautiful -- the kind of face you never expect to see off the screen -- work herself to the bone to try and establish her corporate career, and I kept catching myself thinking "she really doesn't need to do this." It's so ridiculous, and it's so ingrained. And while her looks may have helped her here and there, I'm sure they've also hurt her, and that she's well aware that people see her face and immediately project their preconceptions onto her and may restrict her career development because of it.
What does "ice-sculpted" even mean? Are you telling me there's some quality in Jolie's looks that you've never seen in male action stars? Is she ice-sculpted -- all hard-edged and chiseled and sharp -- pretty gritty qualities -- or is she "miraculously dewy"? I've only seen the trailer, but I don't really think either applies. She looks like a beautiful woman in her 40s. Reminds me of a cousin of mine who's now 70. You could just as easily say this guy looks too goofy for his serious expression, that this guy's too baby-faced to be a convincing baddie (and it's Nicholas Hoult, he can be pretty ice-sculpted), or that this guy looks like he's lived far too comfortable a life to be believable in his role -- that's some moisturized skin right there. But I do not think I have ever seen a review commenting on a male lead's skin moisture levels.
We see what we're conditioned to see, and we treat people accordingly, and people get rewarded or hurt in ways that have nothing to do with their abilities or actions.
Whether Jolie's movies are good or bad really isn't the point here. The point is that her looks aren't the problem in the bad movies, and that maybe we shouldn't keep playing along with the idea that looks should stick you in a particular box, on screen or in life.
(On edit -- Lyn Never, I forgot about that!)
posted by trig at 8:43 AM on May 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
I mean, I think that's it right there, or a big part of it. Being "effeminate", or femininely beautiful, or femininely mannered, are seen as being incompatible with grit, and gravitas, and professionalism, and competence. It's bullshit, but it's there.
I think all the reviews saying "she's too beautiful to be a _____" are reflecting two deeply ingrained feelings: one, that women whose looks stand out aren't as serious as less-striking women, and also women in general aren't as serious as men; and two, that beautiful women just wouldn't voluntarily be working in these roles. That they'd "have options", which in reality would translate to trading on their looks and becoming models or rich men's wives. I'm not trying to throw stones here; I've seen this in myself. I -- a woman -- have watched one person who is just ridiculously, ethereally beautiful -- the kind of face you never expect to see off the screen -- work herself to the bone to try and establish her corporate career, and I kept catching myself thinking "she really doesn't need to do this." It's so ridiculous, and it's so ingrained. And while her looks may have helped her here and there, I'm sure they've also hurt her, and that she's well aware that people see her face and immediately project their preconceptions onto her and may restrict her career development because of it.
What does "ice-sculpted" even mean? Are you telling me there's some quality in Jolie's looks that you've never seen in male action stars? Is she ice-sculpted -- all hard-edged and chiseled and sharp -- pretty gritty qualities -- or is she "miraculously dewy"? I've only seen the trailer, but I don't really think either applies. She looks like a beautiful woman in her 40s. Reminds me of a cousin of mine who's now 70. You could just as easily say this guy looks too goofy for his serious expression, that this guy's too baby-faced to be a convincing baddie (and it's Nicholas Hoult, he can be pretty ice-sculpted), or that this guy looks like he's lived far too comfortable a life to be believable in his role -- that's some moisturized skin right there. But I do not think I have ever seen a review commenting on a male lead's skin moisture levels.
We see what we're conditioned to see, and we treat people accordingly, and people get rewarded or hurt in ways that have nothing to do with their abilities or actions.
Whether Jolie's movies are good or bad really isn't the point here. The point is that her looks aren't the problem in the bad movies, and that maybe we shouldn't keep playing along with the idea that looks should stick you in a particular box, on screen or in life.
(On edit -- Lyn Never, I forgot about that!)
posted by trig at 8:43 AM on May 17, 2021 [5 favorites]
Girl, Interrupted was a pretty darn good movie, though maybe not something that will be remembered decades ahead.
posted by Bee'sWing at 8:45 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Bee'sWing at 8:45 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Oh the other hand, shame on Hollywood for not casting realistic and realistically aged women in roles like this that could benefit from the verisimilitude.
Jolie is 45. Is the character in this movie supposed to be older than that? She's probably more conventionally attractive than most smoke jumpers, but Jon Bernthal is more conventionally attractive than most sheriffs and nobody's complaining about that. The fact that men's standards of attractiveness are different is irrelevant; Harrison Ford's cragginess is still more attractive than 99.9% of the real-world people he portrays.
posted by straight at 8:47 AM on May 17, 2021
Jolie is 45. Is the character in this movie supposed to be older than that? She's probably more conventionally attractive than most smoke jumpers, but Jon Bernthal is more conventionally attractive than most sheriffs and nobody's complaining about that. The fact that men's standards of attractiveness are different is irrelevant; Harrison Ford's cragginess is still more attractive than 99.9% of the real-world people he portrays.
posted by straight at 8:47 AM on May 17, 2021
She said she did it for the money when she said about her life changes (divorce). What's wrong with cashing a paycheck? She sold her name and did a little bit of acting. Was probably paid a lot for it. Probably also did not have to spend a lot of time on set away from her children. I think it is great that she can cash in on her name like all the old white men do.
posted by AugustWest at 9:03 AM on May 17, 2021 [25 favorites]
posted by AugustWest at 9:03 AM on May 17, 2021 [25 favorites]
She said she did it for the money when she said about her life changes (divorce). What's wrong with cashing a paycheck? She sold her name and did a little bit of acting.
reminds me of something I heard about Billy Zane a few years back. Remember him? He was the main human villain in Titanic. A dumb part but he played it to the hilt with a uniquely unsettling (and handsome) corruption. How did he not spin that into a big deal A-list career?
The simple answer is alimony. He had a bad divorce (maybe more than one?) and suddenly paying the bills started factoring into the roles he was choosing. Suddenly, he wasn't holding out, waiting for the right script, but rather basing his decisions on how much he'd get paid and how soon he'd see that paycheck. A few such decisions and he wasn't even considered anymore for the "right" scripts, all he ever saw were the down and dirty straight to the video store options, which he took because he kept needing those paychecks. Hardly a unique story and I'm not exactly crying any tears for the guy. Millions wish they had even a fraction of that level of success. And he still seems to be getting work. But yeah, long story short. Some real life stuff caught up with him, forced some less than ideal career decisions and ... well, let's just say, in the riches and fame game, there's always a million people waiting to take your place should you misstep one too many times.
posted by philip-random at 9:32 AM on May 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
reminds me of something I heard about Billy Zane a few years back. Remember him? He was the main human villain in Titanic. A dumb part but he played it to the hilt with a uniquely unsettling (and handsome) corruption. How did he not spin that into a big deal A-list career?
The simple answer is alimony. He had a bad divorce (maybe more than one?) and suddenly paying the bills started factoring into the roles he was choosing. Suddenly, he wasn't holding out, waiting for the right script, but rather basing his decisions on how much he'd get paid and how soon he'd see that paycheck. A few such decisions and he wasn't even considered anymore for the "right" scripts, all he ever saw were the down and dirty straight to the video store options, which he took because he kept needing those paychecks. Hardly a unique story and I'm not exactly crying any tears for the guy. Millions wish they had even a fraction of that level of success. And he still seems to be getting work. But yeah, long story short. Some real life stuff caught up with him, forced some less than ideal career decisions and ... well, let's just say, in the riches and fame game, there's always a million people waiting to take your place should you misstep one too many times.
posted by philip-random at 9:32 AM on May 17, 2021 [2 favorites]
"I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific." (Michael Caine on one of his various non-memorable films)
posted by trig at 10:34 AM on May 17, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by trig at 10:34 AM on May 17, 2021 [18 favorites]
Googling "billy zane net worth" returns several results indicating he is worth $20-25 million. Even if they are off by a factor of ten, I'd say he is doing OK for himself.
posted by leaper at 10:40 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by leaper at 10:40 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Yep, I think a lot of this is actor's choice. For me, Angelina Jolie's most reliably entertaining films are action movies. On her part, Jolie wanted to work on stories where the main point is not gratuitous violence. She's Angelina Jolie, so she was able to make a lot of them, but...no one really liked those movies? Maybe this is a sign Angelina Jolie wants to get back into the action genre; I think there'd be a lot of interest. Charlize Theron is another gorgeous actress in her 40s, and has spent the last decade making really great action films. That doesn't seem to be tapering off. You could argue that Melissa McCarthy also spent her 40s doing a lot of action-oriented comedies! I'm not saying Hollywood doesn't have an older woman problem, but generally I think older women have more to do in your average action movie than your average prestige drama.
posted by grandiloquiet at 10:48 AM on May 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by grandiloquiet at 10:48 AM on May 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
Re: Divorce:
The article says she resumed acting again "partly because of “a change in my family situation,” referring to her ongoing divorce proceedings from Brad Pitt."
The author is speculating here and MeFi is further speculating this means she's in dire straits. On its face this is of course ridiculous. She's filthy rich, as is Pitt. Their children are very well taken care of financially.
"A change in my family situation" could mean any number of things, not all negative. For instance, maybe she has more free time now because her children are older. At least one of her children is technically an adult with two others not far behind. The point is we don't know. But ascribing her being in a bad movie (as if it's her first) with desperation because some writer can't believe it's so is ridiculous.
For all we know Jolie loves the movie and it turned out as she expected. Again, we don't know.
In short: I can't believe people get paid to write this drivel.
posted by dobbs at 10:57 AM on May 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
The article says she resumed acting again "partly because of “a change in my family situation,” referring to her ongoing divorce proceedings from Brad Pitt."
The author is speculating here and MeFi is further speculating this means she's in dire straits. On its face this is of course ridiculous. She's filthy rich, as is Pitt. Their children are very well taken care of financially.
"A change in my family situation" could mean any number of things, not all negative. For instance, maybe she has more free time now because her children are older. At least one of her children is technically an adult with two others not far behind. The point is we don't know. But ascribing her being in a bad movie (as if it's her first) with desperation because some writer can't believe it's so is ridiculous.
For all we know Jolie loves the movie and it turned out as she expected. Again, we don't know.
In short: I can't believe people get paid to write this drivel.
posted by dobbs at 10:57 AM on May 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
THE DAILY BEAST: You experienced a good run with Titanic, the great Zoolander cameo, and The Believer. Why did the roles seem to dry up after that?
ZANE: One word: alimony. I was married at 21 for eight years with no children to a lovely girl [Lisa Collins], and we’re still friends, but L.A. law had gouged my assets and required exorbitant ransom for the better part of five years, and I chose ultimate freedom, and was happy to do anything to pay off a ridiculous monthly alimony. Dude, it was heinous for a young man, and this was happening right in the middle of Titanic. From that point on, if you see a nose dip, I was basically doing anything that paid to pay that off so it didn’t get extended, because then there’s a penalty. -- Billy Zane Opens Up About ‘Titanic,’ ‘Zoolander,’ and the Lost Decade, April 4, 2012
Zane's worked steadily for decades. [Not mentioned in his career trajectory: Zane's early-ish receding hairline. While there are a few outsized exceptions (Jude Law), there's a known bias against bald/balding "conventionally beautiful" lead actors in the movie industry, and the plausible wig work-around/hair-replacement options for men were limited when Zane was coming up.] At the end of that interview, Zane mentions a film he's working on ("we’re casting a Western that I’m starring and directing in, called Son of a Gun, that’s a classic Western and homage to John Ford") that doesn't appear in his credits, unfortunately; Jolie produces some of her projects, and is building a body of work as a director.
“I prefer directing but acting gives me more time at home,” says Jolie. “It’s less of a commitment.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:59 AM on May 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
ZANE: One word: alimony. I was married at 21 for eight years with no children to a lovely girl [Lisa Collins], and we’re still friends, but L.A. law had gouged my assets and required exorbitant ransom for the better part of five years, and I chose ultimate freedom, and was happy to do anything to pay off a ridiculous monthly alimony. Dude, it was heinous for a young man, and this was happening right in the middle of Titanic. From that point on, if you see a nose dip, I was basically doing anything that paid to pay that off so it didn’t get extended, because then there’s a penalty. -- Billy Zane Opens Up About ‘Titanic,’ ‘Zoolander,’ and the Lost Decade, April 4, 2012
Zane's worked steadily for decades. [Not mentioned in his career trajectory: Zane's early-ish receding hairline. While there are a few outsized exceptions (Jude Law), there's a known bias against bald/balding "conventionally beautiful" lead actors in the movie industry, and the plausible wig work-around/hair-replacement options for men were limited when Zane was coming up.] At the end of that interview, Zane mentions a film he's working on ("we’re casting a Western that I’m starring and directing in, called Son of a Gun, that’s a classic Western and homage to John Ford") that doesn't appear in his credits, unfortunately; Jolie produces some of her projects, and is building a body of work as a director.
“I prefer directing but acting gives me more time at home,” says Jolie. “It’s less of a commitment.”
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:59 AM on May 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
>> Oh the other hand, shame on Hollywood for not casting realistic and realistically aged women in roles like this that could benefit from the verisimilitude.
Jolie is 45. Is the character in this movie supposed to be older than that? She's probably more conventionally attractive than most smoke jumpers...
In addition to the impact working outdoors in such environments would be expected to have on anyone's skin, I was more thinking of Jolie's overall physiology, which leans towards long and willowy compared to the more compact sturdiness of frame and musculature one might expect in a smokejumper. It's a field of endeavor that has quite some physical requirements (e.g., "pack 110 pounds of gear a distance of three miles in 90 minutes or less").
posted by slkinsey at 11:01 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Jolie is 45. Is the character in this movie supposed to be older than that? She's probably more conventionally attractive than most smoke jumpers...
In addition to the impact working outdoors in such environments would be expected to have on anyone's skin, I was more thinking of Jolie's overall physiology, which leans towards long and willowy compared to the more compact sturdiness of frame and musculature one might expect in a smokejumper. It's a field of endeavor that has quite some physical requirements (e.g., "pack 110 pounds of gear a distance of three miles in 90 minutes or less").
posted by slkinsey at 11:01 AM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
She was perfect for Salt, which was way more fun that it should have been.
posted by gottabefunky at 11:07 AM on May 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 11:07 AM on May 17, 2021 [8 favorites]
Jolie is 45. Is the character in this movie supposed to be older than that? She's probably more conventionally attractive than most smoke jumpers...
There was a kids' movie called Playing with Fire from last year that starred a bunch of non-conventional comedy guys (John Leguizamo, Keegan Michael Key) as smoke jumpers/high mountain fire fighters along with John Cena. Maybe the rules are a bit different for drama, but if they can, so can Jolie.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:17 AM on May 17, 2021
There was a kids' movie called Playing with Fire from last year that starred a bunch of non-conventional comedy guys (John Leguizamo, Keegan Michael Key) as smoke jumpers/high mountain fire fighters along with John Cena. Maybe the rules are a bit different for drama, but if they can, so can Jolie.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:17 AM on May 17, 2021
As pointed out above, Charlize Theron has done really well in action films at this stage in her career. I fully expect her to continue that for at least another decade. I don't know about you folks, but I could handle at least four more Atomic Blonde films. A sequel to Salt? Eh, not so much. Jolie needs better scripts.
posted by Ber at 12:28 PM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Ber at 12:28 PM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm surprised Mr. and Mrs. Smith hasn't been mentioned. It's one of my top-ten favorite mainstream Hollywood movies of all time, and I think she's utterly brilliant in it. Then again, seeing how things turned out with ol' Brad, mayhaps it wasn't a stretch acting-wise?
posted by SinAesthetic at 2:27 PM on May 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by SinAesthetic at 2:27 PM on May 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
Brad Pitt is actually a perfect person to reveal what the article is talking about. He's held the gold standard for "hottest guy in Hollywood" for decades, but I don't see any articles questioning whether his looks are preventing him from acting anymore. Sure, he's aging pretty gracefully into an appearance that would serve well in more "gritty" roles (as opposed to being the most beautiful person for 500 miles in movies like "Legends of the Fall") but nobody has EVER, ever, said that he was too pretty to carry off an action role. Fight Club, FFS? TROY? (One of my favorite headlines of all time is "The Butt That Launched A Thousand Ships" talking about Pitt as Achilles.)
So he can act while beautiful, but Jolie can't? Uh huh. Sounds like typical Hollywood sexism to me.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:06 PM on May 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
So he can act while beautiful, but Jolie can't? Uh huh. Sounds like typical Hollywood sexism to me.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:06 PM on May 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
As pointed out above, Charlize Theron has done really well in action films at this stage in her career. I fully expect her to continue that for at least another decade. I don't know about you folks, but I could handle at least four more Atomic Blonde films.
Or another film in the Old Guard Universe or (dare I dream), a Fury Road sequel.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:38 PM on May 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
Or another film in the Old Guard Universe or (dare I dream), a Fury Road sequel.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:38 PM on May 17, 2021 [4 favorites]
There are plenty of men who have been judged “too pretty” or “too delicate” for action. Jude Law for one. And, yeah, Billy Zane. Chris O’Donnell. JGL almost made it there, but couldn’t (maybe Don Jon was the real problem though). Ethan Hawke tried to play an action lead a couple of times to no good effect (playing against Denzel is never going to help, though).
The successful “pretty” men of action are Cruise and Keanu. Cruise did it by force of pure will; Keanu is just Keanu.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:49 PM on May 17, 2021
The successful “pretty” men of action are Cruise and Keanu. Cruise did it by force of pure will; Keanu is just Keanu.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:49 PM on May 17, 2021
Maybe I'm shallow, but I thought the Tomb Raider movies were OK.
And yes, more Atomic Blonde films from Charlize, please. Maybe an Italian Job sequel as well?
posted by lhauser at 7:58 PM on May 17, 2021
And yes, more Atomic Blonde films from Charlize, please. Maybe an Italian Job sequel as well?
posted by lhauser at 7:58 PM on May 17, 2021
In terms of pretty men of action, you can look at the Four Chrises, who, before their breakout roles, were generally slotted into "comedy" and/or "eye candy".
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:27 PM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:27 PM on May 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
the plausible wig work-around/hair-replacement options for men were limited when Zane was coming up.
Every other week, i think about this when I contemplate Brendan Fraser's leading man career vs Chris Evans (and to a much lesser degree in leading man success, Tom Hiddleston).
/tangent
posted by cendawanita at 3:39 AM on May 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
Every other week, i think about this when I contemplate Brendan Fraser's leading man career vs Chris Evans (and to a much lesser degree in leading man success, Tom Hiddleston).
/tangent
posted by cendawanita at 3:39 AM on May 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
« Older Forget it Jake, it's Neopets | Karoshi Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is the part that got to me the most:
The film stifles Jolie’s potential, leans into the skepticism that has dogged her throughout her career, and mishandles her star power. “There have been times in my life where I have felt—and maybe I’ve hidden them well from the public—where I have not felt free, I have not felt safe,” she said in 2019 of her celebrity. “I have felt small. I have felt cornered.” Playing a smoke jumper could have freed her—or at the very least, actually let her fight a fire. But once again, Jolie gets to be larger-than-life only on the billboards.
Right. Like having a slightly more prominent role in a middling 90s disaster flick is what would've allowed her to self-actualization to her fullest potential as a woman. Without more evidence about anything that went wrong on this particular production, I'm just not buying it.
posted by lock robster at 1:02 AM on May 17, 2021 [4 favorites]