Usually we talk about who we would like to see play a part, but I'd like to diverge here a bit to talk about a phenomenon we've all witnessed - the "box office draw vs. the person who is actually good for this role" conundrum. What is this you say? This is what happens when commerce overtakes art (common I know) purely to put derrieres in seats, instead of serving the story. Colin Farrell in Alexander anyone?
As it happens, it was another historical figure that drove me to this post, someone that I have been interested in, nay, obsessed with, for years: Cleopatra. Let's put aside the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton calamity (it should really only be watched if you're interested in the chemistry between Liz and Dick, and even then you should only proceed with caution) and focus on the excellent book by Stacy Schiff. There is only so much we can know about the elusive figure that is Cleopatra; most of what we do know comes from accounts written years later and by men that weren't necessarily her biggest fans. But here's what almost everyone (scholars anyway) can agree upon - she was attractive because of her wit, charm and intelligence, not her looks. As Schiff says in her book, "Plutarch clearly notes that her beauty 'was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her, or that no one could see her without being struck by it.' It was rather the 'contact of her presence, if you lived with her, that was irresistible.'"
So when word started to leak out that Angelina Jolie would be cast as Cleopatra in Paul Greengrass' (probably, Greengrass hasn't been officially signed yet) movie version of Schiff's book, I just wanted to go bang my head against a wall. Whether or not you believe Angelina Jolie is beautiful (I think she is....amazingly so), I think we can all agree she is no plain Jane. I like Jolie, but she is NOT Cleopatra!
What we need here is a 20-ish actress (Cleopatra was 18 when she ascended the throne and just 39 when she committed suicide) that can do haughty regality with an ability to convey unrestrained intelligence and charisma. I am not sure this can work, but I keep coming back to her, so I am just going to throw it out there: Keisha Castle-Hughes. Did I just hear a collective "who?" Go way back to 2002...a little film called Whale Rider...remember? No? Thank goodness for imdb. Okay, you've looked her up...what do you think? Yay? Nay? If you can't get on the Castle-Hughes bandwagon, this might be one of those instances where an unknown actress might be a good move...especially if you can find a native Egyptian of Macedonian Greek heritage.
So there you have it my dear readers, my personal pet peeve. Don't mess with Cleopatra. So tell us, what casting decision-gone-wrong irks you the most?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
I'm a huge Jane Austen fan. And maybe even a huger zombie fan. I enjoyed this book - and I'll probably like the movie, too. But it HAS to be good so it doesn't end up a throw-away spoof. It HAS to have a good cast. With Natalie out - who's in?
My vote is for someone who is age appropriate, strong, British, playful, and proud. This is why I think Emma Watson would be perfect for this role. She needs a vehicle post Harry Potter and the producers of the film would be well served by the fan-base she could bring to the theaters. I also think she could bring the maturity needed to pull-off a Austen heroine - and, well, quite frankly we've seen her kick some serious ass in the Potter movies.
So, who else should be cast in the film? Whose Darcy would compliment Emma's Lizzy? Let us know here in the comments below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)