Friday, November 30, 2007

Twelve Thoughts I Had Whilst Watching Enchanted

01 Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams Amy Adams
02 (opening animated scene) Prince Edward: "Tomorrow we'll be married!" LOL 4realz
03 ohmygod could Amy be any cuter when she collapses into her ginormous white gown beside the homeless man? Her body language is aces in this movie --isn't this mimicry as impressive as anything Cate Blanchett can cook up for the Dylans or Hepburns. I'm just sayin'

04 "Happy Working Song" --ewwww and also: hee. And can the song be over now? 2007 just became the year of the gross but still kinda sweet rodents (see also: Ratatouille
05 (later in Central Park) Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz. And these are the best songs they could come up with. Seriously now...
06 Adams is really committed to this part but why the hell are people expecting an Oscar nomination? I can't see a precedent. Maybe Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins but that was up for everything and Enchanted is not as good as its central performance. It's not gonna happen.
07 The repeated joke about Giselle making her own dresses: priceless
08 "116th and Broadway!!!" Hee. Can James Marsden be in every movie next year? Please. Please. Please. Pretty please with a cherry on top. [prev post]

09 I'm bored
10 Amy Adams looks (real) good in purple but why when she's finally in modern garb is everyone else dressed like they're in Andalasia? This movie is messy
11 Susan Sarandon isn't very good at heightened/stylized acting. Love her (in general) but maybe they oughta have nabbed Miranda Richardson? SigWeavey? La Pfeiffer?
12 [the finale] What just happened. What the hell is going on? Wait, did the chipmunk actually rescue the damsel man in distress? The princess doesn't get to stab the dragon? This movie is stupid.

Enchanted the movie: C+ Amy Adams & James Marsden: A-

56 comments:

James Henry said...

I absolutely LOVED the songs of "Enchanted". Every time "Happy Working Song" comes onto my iPod I break into this stupid ass goofy grin.

The only reason I could think of for showing Giselle in that purple dress in the end was to show that she was starting to assimilate into the "real" world. But it does seem kinda stupid for her to wear that dress then.

I agree with James Marsden being in every movie next year. He's turned potentially boring roles in both "Hairspray" and in here and made them absolutely worthwhile and hilarious to watch.

Elias said...

Amy Adams is marvelous.

And can someone please put a bow on James Marsden and give him to me for Christmas?

Elias said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MARK said...

nat agree weaver would have been perfect,why isn't she emplyed in more mainstream films she is in danger of becoming glenn close.

alsolikelife said...

I think I share about 90% of your thoughts - thanks for articulating them so vividly!

I wanted more Sarandon - lots of buildup to her late appearance and when she finally makes it onscreen in the flesh it doesn't feel like enough. and i don't think it's b/c she can't play larger than life - it's the script/direction's fault.

Alison Flynn said...

This movie was so much fun and Amy Adams was wonderful. She lit up the screen every time she was on.

J.D. said...

It was the Kings & Queens Ball. She would've actually completely fit in, but of course she didn't.

Oh, and #9 is my favorite. :P

Paul C. said...

Totally agree on Adams and especially Marsden- as in Hairspray, he's so much more interesting kidding his lantern-jawed looks than playing the straight-arrow good guy. And now that he isn't burdened with being the world's most boring mutant anymore, maybe he'll get more chances to play funny.

And the old "villain falling to her death" is an old Disney ploy- get rid of the baddie without the hero/heroine actually doing any killing. Plus there's less violence this way if they fall far enough.

adam k. said...

Yeah this movie was the definition of uneven. I left thinking fond thoughts of it, but the more I reflect, the more annoying it was. Amy Adams and James Marsden (and Patrick Dempsey too IMO) managed to fool me into thinking it was good, but I've since come to my senses. It was cute, though.

I also loved the curtain dresses. And how she'd just do it constantly without consulting anyone, because it's, you know, normal.

I agree that the oscar talk is rather exaggerated. It's more of a Legally Blonde, for instance, than anything remotely oscary. That's what I thought when I first heard of it and saw the trailer, and I have not changed my mind. The thing is, the reviews are so reverential of Adams that it makes it seem like she'd be a lock for a nom. But then looking at the actual movie? No. I currently have her at #5 since she's all the rage right now (and because I'm similarly skeptical of Ellen Page), but she'll probably be falling. Especially now that she'll probably no longer win the golden globe.

She is at least still a lock for a globe nom, so that's good. Unfortunately, the film itself probably is, too...

But anyway, I think the oscar race is in reality something like this:

1) Cotillard
2) Christie
3) Knightley
4) Linney
5) lots of people with various things against them vying for a spot (Adams, Page, Jolie, Blanchett, Foster, etc.)

steve said...

I'm not sure how useful precedent will be in this situation. How many performances like this have there been? She's garnered tons of critical praise, and she's the easy "we're voting with our hearts" candidate.

I can easily see her getting in above Page (please, please, please), Bonham-Carter, Blanchett, and Jolie (well, maybe not Jolie... I think she's stronger than people are anticipating).

But anyway, I hope she gets in. I think only Laura Linney and Tang Wei have been better.

Re: The songs. I think they're lots of fun, totally generic (I think that's the point), and they work beautifully (more so "True Love's Kiss" and "Happy Working Song" than "That's How You Know"... "So Close" is also a serious guilty pleasure, but maybe not so guilty? I haven't decided).

And I loved Adams showing up in her dress! I enjoyed the switcheroo... Giselle embracing her emotional maturity, McDreamy rediscovering his romantic side.

I have to say, I was all about the movie (B+ !!!?) until the dragon showed up (B).

So, anyway, Amy better sneak in.

Sammy Jo said...

I love James Marsden! But mostly, I love Nathaniel.
What is going on with mediocre movies getting all this hyped up buzz about Oscar and such?
Enchanted was fantastic for my 10 year old niece!
It is cute...but oh no, oh no... and take Hairspray and Juno away with it.

Elias said...

Adam K, how you remain skeptical about Ellen Page, I'll never know.

To me, she's as such a bet as Cotillard.

Neel Mehta said...

You could argue that Julia Roberts' nomination for Pretty Woman is a precedent.

Actually, it's not a bad one. Julia was previously Oscar-nominated in a supporting role for a Southern family drama. And, despite its plot, Pretty Woman was also a Disney-produced live-action fairy tale.

That said, all this Amy Adams talk reminds me of the lame Oscar prognostications about Sandra Bullock's performance in While You Were Sleeping, when certain know-it-alls thought there was such a thing as an Oscar slot for the "new girl in town."

Sorry, I don't see it happening. But if Amy Adams partners up with Steven Soderbergh around 2019, watch out.

Andy Scott said...

Oh, I'm so glad you loved Adams and Marsden! Yay. They're both worthy of nominations.

I'm with you on the rest of the film. I know it's a Disney movie, but at times it felt too unrealistic even for them (at least as far as the freely popping in and out of sewers in Times Square goes LOL)

adam k. said...

Except Pretty Woman wasn't aimed squarely at little girls... at least as I recall. "Hooker with a heart of gold" isn't the same as "princess with a heart of gold".

Pretty Woman seemed much more of an adult drama than this one, even if it was released by Disney.

amir_uk said...

And don't forget the teary opera scene in Pretty Woman, which pretty much sealed the deal for Julia Roberts' nomination that year.

Kamikaze Camel said...

So, Nat's saying Adams won't get a nomination fact? Nat of all people shouldn't be saying that!

NATHANIEL R said...

why? cuz I didn't believe in the junebug nomination at first?

I just... i guess one should never say something for sure either way. anything's possible but it's a kids movie. The last time someone got nominated for one of those the movie itself (Babe) was a Best Picture nominee with multiple noms.

I would believe it was more possible if
a) the movie itself was great
b) disney regularly launched good campaigns for their actors (they don't)
c) this year wasn't so competitive in lead actress but with CHRISTIE, COTILLARD and LINNEY looking like sure things and JOLIE & PAGE looking likely (not to mention all the other competitors) I would find an Adams nomination for being wonderful at imitating cartoon characters to be a surprise.

but that said I do see the Julia Roberts comparisons but would remind that Pretty Woman was a rated R romantic comedy and the Vivian role had a lot more Oscar elements than the Gisele one does (crying, prostitution, romantic fights, and in general more dimension for an actress to play with --this is not a knock against Adams. She's wonderful but the point of the performance is the 2D quality)

Anonymous said...

For me, the five actresses who will be nominated for the Oscar is:
Laura Linney
Julie Christie
Marion Cotillard
Angelina Jolie
Amy Adams

In my opinion, Ellen Page won't be nominated. I think her case is like Paul Giamatti in 2004, when he won everything with the critcs, but wasn't nominated because he has less starpower than the other actors(Foxx,Depp,DiCaprio,Eastwood and Cheadle). I imagine that with Keira Knightley we are going to have a case like Nicole Kidman in Cold Mountain. So, what do we have?
Considering that Linney, Christie and Cotillard can be considered locks, there are to places to sit.
Angelina Jolie right now has been nominated for everything (Independent Spirits, Golden Satelite,will be honored at Santa Barbara Film Festival, and is a safe bet at the Globes), so, she is in. Amy Adams will be nominated. It is impossible to imagine other possibility.

Rose said...

I dont think the Best Actress race will clear up until at least the end of the year. So many possible contendors, each with their own set of dectractors. I cant make heads nor tails of Knightley's, Adam's and Page's buzz.

On one hand buzz for Knightley's is dying and buzz for Page and Adams is growing. On the other hand, Focus campaign has been really really quiet, and i cant help but feel that the buzz will once again explode once its released. The British media went mad over Knightley's performance and declaring with confidence its award potential; a reaction i have never seen from them before. They never usually talk about Oscars so early and for a perofrmance with so little scren time. So bizarre. Maybe its more to do with her celebrity status and the 1930's/1940's acting style, but it certainly set them in hyperbole mode.

Buzz for Page and Adams, could dwindle as people wonder what the fuss is about. Some consider them both locks, but i think its still too early and am worried they will both face backlash. I just cant see AMPAS embracing them as the critics have.

NATHANIEL R said...

i agree that Adams and Page are much tougher sells to an older Academy than they are to critics and media. Adams in a kids movie. Page in a high school comedy to some degree. Neither genre is very Oscar friendly. but we'll see. If the media pushes hard enough they have a shot

adam k. said...

I do think everyone's been underestimating Angelina. She IS getting nominated everywhere, and though her film flopped commercially, it was well-reviewed. And isn't that sort of more important with an Angie film? It's not like anyone's questioning her fame or bankability. It's just that the public doesn't like serious movies. Not her fault.

I'd say the top Angie probably has that 5th spot. And I think Keira is at least a solid 3rd or 4th, since she's the most oscar-y of the bunch, in a year where most competitors are not. The Cold Mountain parallels are baseless unless Atonement flounders and fails to impress people enough for a best pic nod. Otherwise, this will be an English Patient type situation.

Three dramatic roles (Christie, Jolie, Knightley) plus one dramedy (Linney) and one drama that happens to get placed in comedy/musical at the globes (Cotillard) is much more like what oscar lineups usually look like. I think all the great comedic roles this year might not be nearly as close to oscar as people think.

Anonymous said...

BAFTA's will be interesting this year. Who would they nominate? Cant see Page or Amy nominated, but i can definately see Jolie making it.

NATHANIEL R said...

but even if ATONEMENT is huge Keira could be snubbed since James McAvoy has the larger role and the plot turns on the Briony character (Ronan/Garai/Redgrave)

right now i'm guessing

CHRISTIE
COTILLARD
JOLIE
LINNEY
PAGE

I wish i could get my software going for oscar updates. Hopefully tomorrow

Rose said...

Nat, they are all performances from the independent sector. When was the last time that happened? Not everyone from AMPAS may even get to see all those performance, recognise or even remember their names at time of voting.

Most likely EVERY member of the academy will know Knightley and see her film. I think she will get swept with it. Its a great performance. No denying that she totally nailed the tone and got all the nuances right of the character. She's just more repressed than the other performances. If she went supporting, she'd be giving Blanchett a run for it.

Anonymous said...

You seriously think Knightley wont make it? She had people like Jeffrey Wells raving from Toronto, who wrote her of years ago for being a 'undertalented, overpraised' pretty girl! Now he's ranked her performance above Jolie's.

Brits especially spent their writing time ripping her apart, even after P&P. Now they're raving, and begun to respect her as a serious actress. She already won the Variety Show actress of the year award in the UK.

She'll make it in, for sure.

NATHANIEL R said...

well rose you have to remember that this is the academy and their median age is much older than media writers and internet fans. JULIE CHRISTIE and LAURA LINNEY are bigger AMPAS names than KEIRA KNIGHTLEY (if you're polling 20somethings of the world you'd have to flip that of course since Keira is ubiquitous these days). And JOLIE is of course a superstar to all ages.

PAGE might have the roughest time competing with KNIGHTLEY but her entire movie rests on her which Keira can't say.

but that said. it's early still. we'll see what happens. I think beyond CHRISTIE & COTILLARD many things still seem posible

Anonymous said...

Angelina Jolie is a safe bet at the moment. If she needed percursors awards, this is what she has now:Independent Spirit,Golden Satelite,Santa Barbara Film Festival and expect a nominee at the Globes. She gave us a great performance in A Mighty Heart. About Atonment: The film wasn't nominated for The Golden Satelite when other 12 films were. Is Atonment good enough for a Best Picture nominee? Can the film be considered a safe bet? I think "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" has a better chance.

Anonymous said...

The Best Actress Nominees are:
Julie Christie
Laura Linney
Marion Cottilard
Angelina Jolie
Amy Adams

steve said...

If Enchanted continues its financial success, I think Adams is in. I think it's important not to neglect the fact that people (and important critics, too) love the performance, and that will carry her past performances that are respected but inspire little passion. Also, the film itself has gotten very solid reviews - so voters won't feel like they're slumming.

So I'm predicting her - success with the critics and the moviegoing public will be a potent combination.

Anonymous said...

Nathaniel, in your prediction for Best Actress who is really a safe bet(yellow), Angelina or Page? I think you changed the names.

Anonymous said...

Agree with you one hundred percent! Amy Adams was adorable, but not Oscar-worthy. The movie and plot was cute, but kind of sickening. The songs were okay.

Anonymous said...

Agree with you one hundred percent! Amy Adams was adorable, but not Oscar-worthy. The movie and plot was cute, but kind of sickening. The songs were okay.

Rose said...

Age demograph noted, but the actors branch has expanded considerably so the final tally is likely to be more varied. I'm just thinking whose names is most likely to appear more frequently when those 1000 ballots are cast (never mind order of rank). With so many high-profile releases this year (mostly led by A-List men), i think the size of the film will matter.

Sammy Jo said...

Quite honestly, I don't want Page for the nomination.
It is too much too soon. I do not think it will help her career, I think it will blow her sideways.

I think there is a reason the very young are usually not nominated for lead roles...they haven't really proven their mettle.

Castle-Hughes was a mistake, imo, I would rather have seen Wood nom'ed that year as she had done impressive work for three years on Once And Again and played a very different character in The Missing.

But, it is very rare that we get to see a body of work form such a young actor. I did like Page quite a lot in Hard Candy and Juno...BUT, I am NOT ready to lay down Oscar love to her yet.

I am an actor...I want Oscar nominated actors to be accomplished and have a track record. Sorry, that's how I feel.

Cotillard, Linney, Bonham-Carter, Christie, Tang Wei, Blanchett, Kidman and then Adams in my book.

If Page goes before Linney...I will have to kill somebody!

Anonymous said...

I think The Camel's comment is probably more of a reaction to the Diane Lane fiasco of 2002 ;-)

Elias said...

Right now, I completely agree with your prediction Nathaniel. I don't want to beat a dead horse, so I'm not gonna repeat what everyone is saying. However, 'Juno' has already cumulated tons of buzz here in L.A. from those who have already seen it (in the industry, might I add), and it hasn't even opened yet. I can almost guarantee that the film will do well at the box office and when it does, I won't only predict a nomination for Page, but she'll also be a frontrunner.

Alex said...

Thanks for the filmexperience, Nathaniel, I can't say that enough. You know, the closer we get to the Oscars the more uncertain some things feel - at least to me. Btw, I know people have been saying Linney is a lock, but is she really? She's my personal fave, but how does box office figure into it? Will it have to be a big hit or else it might fade away? It opened on 4 screens at $41k, in comparison to Into the Wild who did 5xs as much on the same # of screens, or Margot who did twice as much on 2 screens.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

Tera said...

I agree with everything you said Nat, especially the songs. I mean they've done better. Maybe I shouldn't have watched the Little Mermaid before Enchanted.lol

I did like how Jodi Benson ( The voice of Ariel)had a small part as Patrick's Assistant.

Overall it was a cute movie nothing more. Amy and James were highlights.

Kamikaze Camel said...

But will older Academy members really ignore their screaming grandkids? If they watched it over Thanksgiving (cinema or DVD screener) with family then that's a big boost. "I voted for Amy Adams!" "You're the best grandpa!" etc. Or especially if you believe the myth that Academy members just get their kids and their grandkids to fill out the form.

I feel strong about Knighley though. Something about it just feels right.

NATHANIEL R said...

"anonymous" --the diane lane fiasco of 2002 was NOT me. That was Kris Tapley. I always believed in Lane's nomination.

I was a doubter in regards to Adams in Junebug though. On account of two other highly visible recent female snubs whose characters were seen masturbating onscreen ;) --it's true. Joan Allen (Pleasantville) and Naomi Watts (Mulholland Dr)

Lee said...

just got back from watching "Enchanted" in my New Jersey hometown a couple of minutes ago, and came running to the message boards to share my thoughts on Adams & the film overall.
A self-proclaimed Adams lover, I was the first online critic to devote a column to Ms. Adams the week "Junebug" opened nationwide. The fact is, 2 years ago, I fell in love with a performance, and with the actress (Adams) who delivered it in "Junebug."

Naturally, when I saw the trailer for "Enchanted," I saw something special in her performance (what I saw of it in the trailer, anyway). Then Johnny ALba (who's great at picking these wild cards turned Oscar nominees) added her to his list, & I knew a nomination was possible.

Whenever I go to a movie with Oscar buzz, I sniff the movie like a detective's dog at a crime scene, which is to say I look for clues or hints of its Oscar worthiness.With "Junebug," for instance, I knew Adams was Oscar worthy, with "Enchanted," however, I couldn't tell. It's not that she did anything wrong, it's just that I think this kind of performance becomes better critiqued on a second viewing.

The film itself offers a handful of laughs, some entertaining and visually arresting dance numbers, interesting costumes, and a nice alternation in an overworked genre, that of Disney being spoofed. I don't think "Enchanted" is particularly well-written, although it's not poorly written by any means. The film benefits tremendously from the heartfelt, and charming work of Patrick Dempsey, and especially, the wonderful James Marsden, whose work in "Hairspray," earlier this year was also a real treat. Marsden provides most of the big laughs in the film, without stealing the show completely from Amy (Whose star making turn the film belongs).

This is a big step in the right direction for Adams, though she's been previously Oscar nominated. This is proof that she can carry a whole movie on her shoulders, and evidence she can sing! It's also proof she can carry a ROMANTIC COMEDY, and with Sandra Bullock, Drew Barrymore, Julia Roberts, and Reese Witherspoon being as old and "with child" As they are now, belueve you me she'll be getting phone calls to fill some big shoes soon.

So, on to the big question, can Adams shortlist for "Enchanted?" Yes. Will she? I don't think so. She delivers a "NATURAL" unpretentious performance, but I don't think it's Oscar's cup of tea. That doesn't mean she wont shortlist, and if she does, I'll be happy for her because she's a tremendous talent, and boy, do we need that in narcassistic money obsessed Hollywood. Still, I think she'll win the Golden Globe.

daveylow said...

Yes, I liked Amy Adams just as much as everyone else in Junebug. And now if I read one more article telling me how great she is, I'll scream. Talk about hyping someone to death. This and Juno, which I'm sure is a good film, but I already can't stand that Cody woman either.

daveylow said...

Nat--Does Patrick Dempsey leave no impression?

NATHANIEL R said...

i like patrick dempsey well enough --liked him way back in 87 with can't buy me love and that film where he's running around in the starkers that jennifer connelly is also in --'some girls'? something like that) but he's kind of a low burn star for me. Very easy on the eyes and a good actor but missing some sort of WOW factor for me so he'll never be a "favorite" --but I like him enough to be happy that he's finally found big success in his 40s

sammy jo i hear you on why the youngsters are usually left out. and i feel the same about ERW... that Hughes nomination maddens me because ERW acts circles around her... but then ERW 's character was maddening and Hughes' was loveable so there you go. as for Page... I imagine she'll annoy some people i Juno but others will be ga-ga for her.

Anonymous said...

I am an actor...I want Oscar nominated actors to be accomplished and have a track record. Sorry, that's how I feel.

Actors shouldn't have to have an established pedigree before the Oscars come calling. It's either about the performance or it isn't, regardless of the kind of person that's in contention for the prize. That's really elitist thinking that should be done away with quickly.

Sammy JO said...

I don't agree. There are emotional people who can be manipulated by a director to give a good performance and no nothing about what they are doing.

Then there are the editors as well. Since film is generally not an actors medium to begin with, I want to know that the actor was at least 75% responsible for the performance!

Maybe it is elitist...but I have worked with people who have done one amazing scene or piece of work due to their own psychology or for whatever reason. But they never did another thing as an actor that could get them out of a paper bag!

As long as I can make my own choices...the words Best Actor in a leading role, or Best Actress in a Suppotting Role means to me that if Coppola harasses Jessica Simpson to the point of a breakdown on camera, I don't have to consider it acting.

It doesn't have to be a long pedigree, and there could be exceptions even for me...but all things being equal...it is the way I feel. Tough titty if you don't agree.

Anonymous said...

But how do you know that that novice performance couldn't have originated from genuine talent and not simply fancy editing? That's pompous and elitist garbage, and thankfully the Academy doesn't have those same kind of dumb hangups.

NATHANIEL R said...

sammy jo. that was hilarious.

I have no problem with "elitist" thinking when it comes to the arts. The standards are falling too much now that everyone thinks everyone is equal. It's the american idol problem 'YOU TOO CAN BE A STAR' that encourages people to think of talent and fame as luck rather than talent as what it is: potential. Rewards (for both performer and audience) are greater when they come from people who really know what they're doing.

this is why i got a bit pissed at Johnny Depp for not vocally training for Sweeney Todd and Tim Burton for basically boasting that he cast non-singers. To me that's an insult to professional singers... or actors who really train for their parts. though I also recognize that Depp is a genius actor so i'm not trying to diss him. or bring this subject up again (oops) it's just been on my mind.

The 2003 example of young people and who got nominated and who didn't is such a good one. it shows the problem when you reward someone who hasn't proven themselves... and ignore someone who has. I feel 100% confident in stating that Wood has another thirteen in her (at least) but does Hughes have anything left to offer the cinema?

but that said I think people SHOULD vote for new performers when they feel it's a really amazing performance. They should just think a little more carefully before doing that... like "does this director always pull amazing stuff from people?" or whatnot...

there's lots of things to consider when voting. Nobody has to agree with anybody but what I always hope for is that people are actually thinking about it seriously when they scribble the names on the ballot.

but you always hear that they're not *sniffle*

Anonymous said...

That's still snobbery of the worst kind. What makes you better than anyone else in determining what kinds of "art" gets singled out for awards consideration, or what level of pedigree is worthy for something versus not? Some truly great performances have come from unexpected places, and those performances would have never been known or recognized if some pompous blow-hard came along and said "this isn't the kind of work that gets acknowledged in my academy". It's lame BS through and through.

NATHANIEL R said...

you should probably try and relax about this. EVERYONE has their biases. Yours are clearly in favor of every opinion and every degree of craft is equal to every other... which is not something that I particularly share.

it's totally cool to disagree. but you should probably realize that there'd be MANY more great performances recognized if the academy themselves would drop their bizarre rules of exclusion. (in other words: the academy has ignored lots of great things and it's like you're claiming that they don't make exclusionary mistakes which is odd no matter how you slice it.)

our BS (each persons being different, you know) it's not lame BS anymore than the academy's decisions are automatically lame BS because they have very obvious things that they won't consider awards worthy no matter how good they are (see: performances in comedies, sci fi films, etcetera) or how mediocre they are (see: performances in biopics, usually rewarded whether they're brilliant or merely serviceable)

just something to think about

if you want great performances from unexpected places to be honored the ACADEMY is probably not the best place to look

Anonymous said...

No one said that the Academy was inclusive first of all. Frankly, I don't care that they don't reward sci-fi or comedies or whatever, but the original proposition was that novices don't deserve the same type of acknowledgement that more pedigreed actors enjoy simply b/c they don't share the same acting "stock". That's wrong and snobby elitism, and nothing anyone says will change my view on that. Some landmark performances have come from novices, and those roles would have never been realized or recognized if casting directors and Academy members had that same kind of tunnelvision.

Sammy Jo said...

Oh Nathaniel, can you imagine having all the resources at hand that Depp must have had, and not WANT to train with the best vocal coaches? On that libretto? I would die to be in that position!
That is a real sticking point with me as well as far as Sweeney Todd goes.
To me that may well be the difference between great and brilliant.

Anonymous, I respect your opinion, truly. I did say there were exceptions...I can't think of any offhand...can you? If an actor came from the stage, for example, that is every bit as important.

I too feel that it has become too easy to be a performing artist of any kind. We except mediocrity everywhere including the Presidency of The United States. It infuriates me.

Hilary Duff makes millions of dollars as a singer, even though she can barely sing a note. Cameron Diaz worked with Martin Scorsese. Renee Zellweger won an Oscar. Zac Efron is the future?

All I can say is, Oy Vey!

daveylow said...

It is the height of arrogance when actors decide to star in film musicals and don't have any vocal training--though I guess Depp sang in a band when he was younger. And it's even worse when directors think they should film musicals with nonsingers.
I want to like Sweeney Todd but I wondering if all these talented missed the boat here.

Rose said...

I completely agree with sammy jo. I think the Hollywood industry has made people 'forget' what acting is supposed to be about, and what exactly actors are supposed to be. Its a craft! An expressive art, like painting or dancing.

What annoys me the most, is how many 'actors' dont bother trying to improve as performers, even though thats what their trade is supposed to be about. Yet they still reap the benefits of being an 'actor' and feel sorry for themselves when films flop or they dont get the desired roles. Its all just about ego these days, and thats knocked the bar down.

Anonymous said...

Adams took an okay part and made it great, just like Meryl Streep did last year. Of course, the Academy scrambles to get Meryl nominated at every opportunity, but it is more than likely that Adams will get some attention too.

She’s also in Charlie Wilson’s War (albeit in a small role) so I think she won’t be forgotten come voting time.