McConaughy isn't the only example of this phenomenon. Much of the buzz around Robert Pattinson's Cosmopolis centered around the idea that this was a whole new, and inherently superior side to the young heartthrob. After a career centered around films where he romanced women (The Twilight Saga, Water For Elephants, Bel Ami), he was finally getting respectable with a David Cronenberg film where he was doing more conventionally manly things like shooting guns and engaging in casual sex with nameless hot girls. To push it even further, one could argue that McConaughy was only able to get critical respect after he stopped romancing women and started raping and torturing them. It's the same for actresses as well. Blake Lively starred in Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, The Private Lives of Pippa Lee, and is now the lead in a long-running television series (Gossip Girl). But the only point in her career when she has been taking seriously is when playing a tarted-up junkie in the male-dominated The Town or the hostage in Oliver Stone's Savages (and even there she was derided because critics missed that her character was supposed to be vapid). Only after Lively played an almost cartoonishly broad 'whore' to Rebecca Hall's 'virgin' did critics say "Huh, she can act!".
The tendency to praise characters who do harm to themselves or others over characters who don't necessarily trade in violence extends to actresses as well. We mock or belittle actresses (Katherine Heigl, Jennifer Aniston, etc.) who appear in romantic comedies (which primarily appeal to female audiences) while holding up the actresses (Jennifer Lawrence, Rooney Mara, etc.) who play action heroines (or appear as token girlfriends in male-centric pictures). And just what exactly made Brave's Merida a better role model for young girls other than the fact that she didn't want to get married and occasionally dabbled in recreational archery? Her character is quite similar to Ariel from The Little Mermaid, yet the world at large thought her to be a superior role model because she knew how to ride a horse and wielded weapons in the marketing materials. The presumption, sight-unseen, that Katniss Everdeen was a better role model than Bella Swan (arguably true) stemmed less from the actual stories they appeared in (since most of the editorials were written before The Hunger Games was released in theaters) but rather because one pursued romance and the other killed in order to survive. It's no secret that we, as a culture, lionize 'warrior' traits, but the extent that we seem to hold fictional characters who pursue love or peace over those who pursue 'adventure' if not outright violence is a little disconcerting when applied to our national mood that demands fabricated machismo from our elected leaders and our would-be heroes.
So now Matthew McConaughy is a 'serious actor' because he plays a character who commits an act of unspeakable sexual violence in a new William Friedkin film (a scene that stops the up-to-that-point terrific Killer Joe dead in its drags in order to revel in the brutality in a black-comic light). Robert Pattinson is now a genuine badass now that he makes films where he wears fancy suits, sleeps with random hotties, and shoots guns in Cosmopolis. And on the other side of the coin, Brave's Merida is automatically a superior character and/or a better role model for young girls than Ariel or Belle because she shoots arrows at trees while riding on horseback. And Kristen Stewart's Snow White is automatically a superior character compared to Bella Swan because she spends five minutes dressed in armor and engaging in open warfare. This is a critical and pundit class that puts characters who do violence or harm on a pedestal over characters who engage in peace. This is a fetishization of fictional violence, not among adolescent boys but among the would-be critical establishment. The actor or actress who plays characters of action shouldn't automatically graded on a higher curve than those playing characters of simple emotion. The end result is simple: we put a higher premium on characters who can kill over characters who can love.
Scott Mendelson
15 comments:
I think you are over-simplifying why Bella fails as a role model. I've written pages about why she is the worst thing to ever happen to young female readers and it doesn't have anything to do with "She's in love with a boy!" It has everything to do with how she is nothing without a man in her life, can do nothing for herself, is selfish and petulant, can't think for herself, and the like with many more to add.
Also, I think the fact that Merida didn't desire nor need a love interest is a HUGE thing, tho it seems small, because there are no other Pixar/Disney movies that center around a girl where the end-game isn't to end up with a Prince/love interest. I loved that the goal WASN'T to find love or realize she desired love. It was that she is independent and that's ok, too. It's not really demonizing the love story. It's just showing that not all of them HAVE to be love stories.
Also, I think you over-look movies about strong women who aren't warriors, like The Duchess or Elizabeth. I think actresses in movies like that are viewed as great actresses because the nature of their roles demand more. It has nothing to do with fighting or acting masculine. Plus, Pride and Prejudice IS a romantic movie, but critics also recognized Keira Knightley as a great actress.
I think what it comes down to is that serious movies will always prove talent more truthfully than rom coms or "chick flicks" (like Failure to Launch or 27 Dresses) will, and THAT'S why they get bad raps, perhaps.
But overall, I really liked this topic. I'd love to explore it more with more examples.
I think you are over-simplifying why Bella fails as a role model. I've written pages about why she is the worst thing to ever happen to young female readers and it doesn't have anything to do with "She's in love with a boy!" It has everything to do with how she is nothing without a man in her life, can do nothing for herself, is selfish and petulant, can't think for herself, and the like with many more to add.
Also, I think the fact that Merida didn't desire nor need a love interest is a HUGE thing, tho it seems small, because there are no other Pixar/Disney movies that center around a girl where the end-game isn't to end up with a Prince/love interest. I loved that the goal WASN'T to find love or realize she desired love. It was that she is independent and that's ok, too. It's not really demonizing the love story. It's just showing that not all of them HAVE to be love stories.
Also, I think you over-look movies about strong women who aren't warriors, like The Duchess or Elizabeth. I think actresses in movies like that are viewed as great actresses because the nature of their roles demand more. It has nothing to do with fighting or acting masculine. Plus, Pride and Prejudice IS a romantic movie, but critics also recognized Keira Knightley as a great actress.
I think what it comes down to is that serious movies will always prove talent more truthfully than rom coms or "chick flicks" (like Failure to Launch or 27 Dresses) will, and THAT'S why they get bad raps, perhaps.
But overall, I really liked this topic. I'd love to explore it more with more examples.
Maybe because onscreen violence is awesome.
man, you are the best film writer/thinker out there. really, good on you. I don't consider myself that much of a film follower, and I literally never any movie reviews if I haven't seen the movie. So it's weird that I read your blog. But for some reason this became a place I check out, and really like these posts. And the reviews if I happen to see the movie, afterwards.
I've written elsewhere at more length about the 'role model/morality' stuff regarding TWILIGHT, so forgive me for giving it short shrift here. As for Brave, the fact that she didn't need/want a man is fine. But I'd argue that the fact that she didn't need a love interest no more makes her a good role model that her Ariel falling in love with Eric makes her a bad role model. It's a little more complicated on both ends. One could argue that a female Disney lead without a love interest is noteworthy, but that in-and-of-itself doesn't make Merida a superior character nor does it automatically make Brave a superior motion picture (I would argue the most purely feminist Disney female lead is Pocahontas, yet her film is among the worst of the modern Disney era).
Interesting as always. Although I think the reason for the split isn't so much about violence and love (though that defiantly plays a part) is more in the general idea in fiction that "darker" fiction is more dramatic; evil is multifaceted, goodness one dimensional. This is stupid of course, but it's simple and effective, so people buy into it.
And then of course, there's the gender argument. Since almost all of Hollywood (executives, writers, directors, etc etc) is male, you're more likely to see adolescent male fantasy stories of death and violence treated with more gravitas than romcoms. Again, it's stupid, but no one said the phrase with age comes wisdom and maturity was true for everyone. Or a majority of everyone.
Oh, I justify my shit talking about Katherine Heigl by pointing out that since she derided 40 Year Virgin has sexist, her entire movie career as been movies with the "happiness=man!" ethos.
Thank you, Scott. I totally agree.
I think the really simple and pertinent point you are missing is that Matthew is now being taken seriously as an actor because he is appearing in good films. Yes, I'll admit - Ghosts of Girlfriends Past is a guilty pleasure - but otherwise all of his romantic comedies are putrid, safe excuses in a genre filled with safe excuses. He kept making the same type of film over and over again, and none of them were any good. I don't think it is that he is finally playing violent characters, I think it is that he is finally choosing quality scripts. Bernie, for example, was a terrific little film with a great performance by Matthew, and his character wasn't violent or deranged whatsoever. In fact, he was the film's moral center.
As far as Rob is concerned, it's pretty similar. The Twilight movies are decent at best, and Water for Elephants failed to live up to its source material. Cosmopolis, on the other hand, is an interesting and audacious film from a renowned director.
I personally think you are giving too much credit to the violence here, and ignoring the fact that the level of quality of the projects is truly what is making people see them in a more serious light.
I have written before about I think the meme that McConaughy's prior films were all lousy is false, so I didn't give it much ink here.
http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/03/artistic-comeback-he-never-left-look-at.html
I will defend a couple of his romantic comedies as they work within the confines of the genre (How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days is fine until the to-this-point selfish and vain characters suddenly are devastated over the bet). And I can't disagree with a thing you say about Bernie, other than the fact that he received far less coverage over that film than the other two (Bernie really was the little engine that could this summer in terms of arthouse films that thrived purely on word-of-mouth). As for Pattinson, I would argue that Water For Elephants is a pretty rock-solid romantic drama, even if Pattinson has more chemistry with Waltz than with Witherspoon (I have not read the book but can only confess to being completely entertained by the movie). And it's no secret that I'm quite fond of the first Twilight film. What the above concerns is the reactionary 'now he's making real movies' that permeates often sight-unseen when actors previously known for female-centric genres dip their toes elsewhere.
I can't argue with the last point, although I do think her *films* are graded on an unnatural harsh curve. For example, One For the Money is a harmless and mostly entertaining mediocrity, as opposed to 'one of the year's WORST films!!!'.
Scott, I certainly understand the point you are making and I think it might have truth to it, but I think it would be clearer and more powerful if I knew exactly who you are targeting. Who is the 'we' you keep referring to? Critics, entertainment magazines, online polls? If so, which ones? I'd be interested to see their original reviews of those films and see if they are actually saying what you are inferring, otherwise there might be other reasons for their views, as many of the comments have already pointed out
With respect to Matthew, the reason he was derided for his romantic turns is because he had already had great notices in his dramas, A Time to Kill, Contact, Amistad. He had become the go to guy for actors that were not playing cops, or adult adolescents. He, at a relatively young age,brought gravitas to roles, and a certain adult portrayal that seemed to be lacking. He did not have the boyish good looks of Cruise or Pitt or Depp. He looked like a man, spoke like a man, and did not play the amateur learning the ropes.
Scott I think you are focusing on the violence as a counterpoint to your argument a bit much. Matthew's Lincoln Lawyer was not a violence driven film, and his character was not driven by violence.
So it is only after he established himself as a great dramatic actor and then seemed to be only doing romantic comedies, where he is essentially playing the same character in each of them, that critics and film fans started the negative comments. For a while it seemed like that was all he was doing, which upon examination he was not, it was just that the romantic comedies were the big studio films and his dramas were smaller budgeted fare with less exposure and less box office.
I still like a good rom/com when I see it, it's just very hard to make a good one these days that seems like an original or at least a well written one. For an actor of his talents, sure he has to pay his bills too, but I think his dramatic performances are worthy of praise.
You bring up some thought-provoking points with regard to our culture's disturbing fascination with/worship of violence. Still, using the logic that violent roles get actors taken seriously, whereas those that center around "romance" do not, wouldn't guys like Tom Cruise, Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis have gotten more "respect" as actors? And how do you then explain the (very deserved) reputations of actors like Colin Firth, Kenneth Brannagh and Michael Fassbender?
I would argue that the critics' refusal to look seriously at (pre-Cosmopolis) Robert Pattinson as an actor was his intractable association with the lead character of a film franchise that is both wildly popular with teenagers and considered to be of sub-par quality, not with his "romantic" roles. Until Cosmopolis, no matter what he did, Pattinson was slammed by critics as a "sparkly vampire," no matter how remote the character of Edward was from the role in question. While the film Bel Ami is flawed, I hardly think that his very respectable work as the vicious, amoral, social-climbing, womanizing character of Georges DuRoy is a man who pursues "romance." All most critics could do after watching that film was dismiss his performance him playing "just another kind of vampire." What?
My observation is that actors are finally taken seriously when the *films* they work on and directors they work with are taken seriously. David Cronenberg's *reputation* as an auteur who would never stoop to hiring an actor only for his "popularity" is what forced critics to really pay attention to the way Pattinson handled the difficult, talky, weirdly poetic script and the desperately empty, sociopathic character of Eric Packer.
Not the violence.
I don't think your argument is valid. These actors are not derided for their work because they are in rom coms. They are derided because the rom coms are deridable. If the rom coms were thoughtful and well made and required the actors to stretch then they would be celebrated. But alas they are simply vehicles designed for all involved to pick up paychecks. This is the key difference that you have rather uncharacteristically glossed over. The reason actors receive praise for violent or darker themed films is because it requires them to go beyond the everyday emotions and to go places few people truly go. Also these films tend to be riskier and made for adults rather than teen girls. Adults are harder to please, teen girls just want to see heart throbs read their lines.
Honestly, I think 90% of the reason Heigl's rom coms are judged so harshly is because Roswell is the hateful fandom that keeps on giving. It was a fun little show with some rather deep flaws, that, to this day has women in their late 30s latching onto other shows where Roswell acting vets have gone to dish out some of the worst misogyny I've ever seen women throw at other women. I site any twop forum related to Grey's Anatomy and its spin off as an unfortunate example; the wife of one of Heigl's Roswell costars is on the spin off, is arguably the best bloody actor on the show with some of the best material to work with but gets most of the vitriol of the fans (which didn't seem to start happening until people realized her Roswell connection).
Heigl took a lot of flak on Roswell and Grey's for some stuff she said off set that was regarded as unprofessional (and some of it rightly so). Her characters on both shows did some things that got fans all riled up. But it has carried over into this weird personal hatred people attach to the actress in a way that just can't possibly be healthy.
Post a Comment