 |
| Does she get your blessing Grace and ... Oscar? |
So, word broke yesterday that Nicole Kidman is currently cast (or attached or in talks or whatever [
THR reports that she's "in negotiations"] ... I have problem deciphering the between the lines stuff; nothing seems certain about these things, until cameras start rolling) to play Grace Kelly in a "non-biopic" story about how she helped broker a resolution between
Monaco (is it a weird coincidence that one of Kidman's few producing credits includes
Monte Carlo?) and France behind the scenes involving a tax compromise. Oddly, enough, very little can be found about this "true story" outside of Friday's negotiation announcement involving Kidman. Initially, I thought the French producer behind getting his movie made, Pierre-Ange Le Pogam, was just a stark-raving Kidman fan, but the guy has a long list of credits including
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, In the Beginning and
Colombiana--not exactly the markings of a businessman with an eye for profits, however.
[Pictures via Just Jared, Vanity Fair, Nicole Kidman United, Kitty Renovates] |
| Nicole in Paris two months ago |
The big hubbub is that the script deals with Kelly at age 33 (although further research shows that she may have actually been 32, pressing 33) and Kidman is (gasp!) almost 45. I know that
Lainey is a firm believer that Kidman needs to start acting her age and, at least, start playing mothers of teenagers (not just toddlers) and let go of her obsession with "staying young." I TOTALLY get that. And, yes, I am like any spectator that looks upon her torqued visage with mild horror and plagued with the question, "How can she fucking
DO that to her face?" And, even, "How can her friends let her?" I wish we knew what she would look like without any surgical enhancements at this point in her life. Could it really be as bad as she fears? Cate Blanchett is something like two years younger than her and she is FUCKING FLAWLESS! Did you see the
Intelligent Life cover of her sans makeup/Photoshop? Rachel Weisz is only, like, three years younger than Kidman. G-O-R-G-E-O-U-S and, like Blanchett, NO work done. (Well, that's what they claim, and, considering how common it is for an actress to either deny work and downplay the work she has had done, I *feel* like I can take Blanchett and Weisz at their word; what do I know?)
 |
Nicole Kidman at
the ACM Awards a month ago |
Anyway, if you saw
Rabbit Hole, you know the woman is still at the top of her game artistically, ten years after starting her best year(s) of her career with the advent of
Moulin Rouge!, which, ironically, started when she was ... pushing 33. Her Jesus year was her golden year and is the envy of many actresses who can remember. Not only had she just finished
Rouge!, but she immediately flew over to
The Others and then quickly hopped onto the set of
The Hours. By the time she turned 34, she began her three-fold attack both commercially and critically. Once the luke-warm reception on
Cold Mountain had settled in at the end of 2003, she would gradually work off the fumes of the glory her one-two-three punch provided. (Why I have this obsession with age/numbers, I ask myself all the time.)
 |
Kidman at
Tropfest 2012 in Sydney |
The fact that she's 44 (soon to be 45) doesn't bother me so much, especially if you consider the visual perception of Grace Kelly for most of us it is what we see of her onscreen from her films. She quit acting roughly around the age of 27, which, I'm sure, makes the judgments on Kidman's age a little weighted against her favor. Now, if Kidman was 54, that would warrant a good eye-roll at the minimum. But, 44, not so much. It's not like she's Kevin Spacey playing Bobby Darrin. Hello! But, then, don't women face sharper criticism than men in general when it comes to things related to looks and age? You tell me. Or perhaps it's not so much the age thingie, but what really bothers people is they have trouble attributing Kidman with the main qualities Kelly was most admired for. She was such an icon known so much for her effortless beauty, regal manner, and, well
grace. Was there ever a birth name given to a movie star more fitting? Kidman, on the other hand, though quite beautiful in the past, has clearly gone under the knife the past ten years and has been very disingenuous about it to boot. On that note, I can understand the qualm one may have with this. It's kind of difficult to dispute.
 |
Grace Kelly in 1961
at age 32 |
Even though I am not a stark-raving fan of Kidman (though I may come across that way), she has her way of turning me off and it's not just the plastic surgery. In interviews, she oftentimes feeds this cold, impenetrable persona that isn't very human. She appears perpetually on another planet: not relatable AT ALL. It's not her job to be "one of us," but it's so much easier to enjoy an actor's work when they seem like an awesome person in real life, is it not? And, when she does try to lower her head from above the clouds, she is frequently painfully awkward. I prefer not to watch her on the talk-show circuit. This is all quite unlike many of the characters Kelly came to be known to portray.
 |
Kidman at age 32/33
in Moulin Rouge! promo shot |
But, on the screen, she's pretty bold and fearless. It makes for a very intriguing juxtaposition with her privileged and intellectual background. And I love that about her. She's a very curious actress, who is wiling to explore an assortment of story lines. I can't say she has ever been miscast (where it matters). And, of course, she has sick-ass taste in directors.
And, you can't discount her ambition. Once her contract marriage with Tom Cruise ended, she hasn't looked back and has this insatiable appetite to work in her craft. While she has been quoted recently of having said something to the effect of, "my family is my priority and I'm not so worried about what comes along professionally," I don't know if I really buy that. Even nine years after her Oscar win, at, well, age 44, her name may not be under consideration anymore for the widely announced major casting calls (like
The Thin Man remake,
The Dark Knight Rises, and
Gravity from a while back), but it gets floated around like none other as far as rumored productions are concerned (i.e.
The Family Fang, The Night Circus, etc). Her management team gets an A+ for creating the perception of her relevancy. But, when she achieved critical and industry respect in the early 00s, and it came time for her decision to see if she could really prove herself commercially, it just didn't work out. But, then, high-profile ventures that were suited for her abilities weren't readily available at a pace that could keep up with her work ethic, so she ended up signing on to the flops-in-the-making
The Stepford Wives and
Bewitched remakes. Even at an ensemble capacity, the franchise-wannabe
The Golden Compass infamously underperformed and her
Rouge! reunion with Luhrmann
Australia did little to dispel any hopes she had left of opening a movie on her name. And, to make matters worse, she couldn't even slum it with Nicolas Cage and Joel Schumacher (whom she worked with on
Batman Forever) without getting anything out of it but a measly paycheck. (Incidentally, as awful as the film
Trespass was, Kidman amazingly still gave it her all; the woman is a dedicated workhorse, no doubt.)
 |
Kidman at age 33
in The Others promo shot |
Now, she may have an opportunity to recapture mainstream audience's attention AND another Oscar. If there ever was a working actress who deserves a second leading Oscar, out of the existing pool, her name is the first that comes to mind as far as output, talent and timing are concerned (or maybe Charlize Theron's is; I can't decide). The internet is pushing the Grace Kelly movie as similar to the
The King's Speech. I don't know how true this is and what potential there is to replicate its success (paging Harvey Weinstein), but, if you think about it, Colin Firth had never opened a movie and, though I seldom paid attention to how well he worked the circuit, my experience has always been that he was uncomfortable in his press-related ventures and wasn't dissimilar to the distant, emotionally unavailable characters he often played ... which makes me think of Kidman for some reason.
 |
Kidman at age 33
in The Hours promo shot |
I thought Naomi Watts was cast. Or, at least, her name was floated around and I don't recall anyone barking about the fact that she's 43 (or, maybe I'm thinking of the Princess Diana biopic; you meet one Princess, you've met them ... just kidding). But, people can see her (as well as Gwyneth Paltrow and, God forbid, January Jones), because of the physical proximity. But, did Michelle Williams cry out Marilyn Monroe when she was cast? Not to me. But, I kept an open mind and, when I saw her in the movie, I was blown away. So though she didn't have "the hips" for the role, damn me, if she didn't capture her essence. And looking at Kelly closely, I can make out a little bit of Kidman.
 |
Another popular redhead
hoping to catch a second wind |
My only question right now concerns this Pierre-Ange Le Pogam and what his intentions are. Does he know what he's doing or is he blinded by that Nicole Kidman. Remember
The Danish Girl fiasco? I'm not sure if this film will fall into the same fate (it may have had something to do with her production company not being able to drum up financing) and I don't have the knowledge to understand the differences in circumstances. Sony Picture Classics is already set up as distributer (and will be coproducing), which is promising. The screenwriter is new, but the director (right now) is Olivier Dahan (his
La vie en rose got Marion Cotillard public exposure and an Oscar). The budget is only $15M (while other reports have it at reaching $30M), which sounds somewhat realistic, if only because, in the right hands, you can do a lot with very little (perhaps even for a movie set in Monaco, of all places)--though $30M sounds a little steep for film that rests on Kidman's shoulders. And, if she ever expects to hit pay-dirt again, its origins are going to have to be humble, I imagine. Here's hoping things work out for her. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing her capture a second-wind, almost as much as I wish she lays off the Botox and lip-injections. This begs the question: is it too late for her and has she cornered herself into upkeeping her procedures lest she turn out like
Lara Flynn Boyle? Maybe this Monaco film is a train-wreck-in-the-making. But, I'd love to be proven wrong.
 |
| Kidman at 33 in the 2001 edition of Vanity Fair's "Hollywood Issue" [someone once brought it up to me: aren't they all?] with Streep, Deneuve and ... Paltrow (?); um, how is it that Paltrow supplanted Blanchett AND Winslet for the cover? Never mind that they have the first portion of the foldout with Redgrave making it the"all British" page [Well, Australian Blanchett has become best known for portraying an English icon, as well as many other English characters]: Vanity Fair Super Stardom Prediction FAIL! |
No comments:
Post a Comment