Stars: Salma Hayek, Alfred Molina, Geoffrey Rush, Mia Maestro, Ashley Judd, Antonio Banderas, Edward Norton, Diego Luna
Director: Julie Taymor
Oscar History: 6 nominations/2 wins (Best Actress-Salma Hayek, Art Direction, Costume Design, Makeup*, Original Score*, Original Song-"Burn It Blue")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars
In celebration of my brother's birthday today, we are doing not one Best Actress (his favorite category) review, but two! This morning we talked about Greta Garbo's legendary turn in Camille, but this afternoon we're going to go with a more modern take. My brother has seen pretty much every nominee for Best Actress since 1960, and his approach to the category has been reverse chronology, so I'm going to honor his strategy by picking the most recent film that I have not seen cited for the Best Actress field, which would be Frida. In 2002, the Best Actress category was very uniform-the same five women kept showing up at virtually every precursor & predictions list. The strange thing about this was that while there were several newcomers (including today's nominee, Salma Hayek, who in 2002 was best-known as Matthew Perry's love interest in Fools Rush In rather than the multi-hyphenate superstar she is today), this meant that Oscar was snubbing Meryl Streep, the reigning grand dame of this category. This is the only time that Streep has had a lead role in a Best Picture nominee (The Hours) that she wasn't nominated for, despite her being superb in the film and having three of her costars be cited for it (so clearly the acting branch was watching the movie). I was curious in coming into Frida what it was about Hayek's work here to mark one of the only disruptions the acting categories have had in the past 40 years in bucking Streep for a film that Academy loved.
(Real Life Doesn't Have Spoiler Alerts) The movie takes a look at the life of Frida Kahlo (Hayek), an artist who was not celebrated in her time & more so really just became famous starting in the 1970's (a much swifter path to painting icon than you'd assume), and while spreading across her whole life, largely focusing on her relationship with painter Diego Rivera (Molina), who was far better known during his lifetime as an artist of renown. The movie looks at their marriages (not properly delineating exactly that there were two), Rivera's adultery, briefly Kahlo's bisexuality, and Frida's struggle to find her own voice through her work when everyone around her is focusing on Rivera.
Frida is hard to judge based on some of the stories surrounding its production. Hayek was reportedly repeatedly harassed by producer Harvey Weinstein, who according to a recent piece she did in the New York Times, during production constantly sexually harassed her & pressured her for sex, and when she declined, he threw up huge roadblocks to stall the production, the biggest of which was getting four name-brand stars (Rush, Judd, Banderas, & Norton) to play small parts in the movie to give it more marketability. Hayek achieved this, and it's impossible not to respect the film for existing under those conditions.
But as it is, it's not impressive. Hayek's performance is middling-she doesn't bring a lot of dimensionality into her work as Frida Kahlo, with us always seeing her simply as a connection to Diego Rivera's work, but rarely as a woman of her own right. This feels like a simplification of a woman who would not only become a prominent painter (admittedly in death), but celebrated as a global icon. It's a paint-by-numbers biopic, even with Taymor adding her own flare to the conversation, and something that I felt less than impressed by as it went on. The film's other nominations all feel cheap as well. The Oscar-winning score is definitely prominent, but it frequently distracts from the story & becomes its own character, and the costumes & art directions, while borrowing from Kahlo's paintings, don't jaw-drop in the way that later attempts to do this in Loving Vincent and Mr. Turner would do. It's a neat trick (especially with the art direction), but it's not consistent enough for us to really get into it, and the rest of the work feels too much like a film set, not enough authenticity like it's actually existing onscreen. The Makeup work is really just the eyebrow (which, while iconic, doesn't make up for the fact that Hayek is dying the way that a heroine in the 1930's would be dying onscreen-a little bit of powdered makeup, but still unabashedly glamorous). The only nomination I can kind of get onboard with is "Burn it Blue"-it's not a grand song, but it is catchy & it fits like a glove over the film...though it is sadly not one of the many musical moments of the piece, but instead just something they slapped onto the end credits.
It's been a crazy week politically, and yes, a little bit of the entertainment world also got a bit wild, so let's start investigating the stories we missed during the week.
In Entertainment...
-I haven't weighed in yet about Stephenie Meyer's new take on Twilight, so I figured I'd let Buzzfeed do the work for me with its hilarious list of 34 questions about her gender-swapping Life and Death. Here's the thing-I have a weird obsession with Twilight and actually love the books, even though I can acknowledge there is nothing substantive about them (I am allowed a guilty pleasure now-and-again). Event series like this or Harry Potter I find insanely exciting and the idea of people getting together for books is probably one of my favorite pop culture phenomena just because I love to read. However, while I did buy the book instantly, I think it's a little cheap that this wasn't the long-gestating Midnight Sun. It isn't like Meyer didn't know that the Twilight anniversary was coming up, and it's not like she hasn't had years since she last published a book. I hear that Meyer is angry about how EL James stole her perspective-swapping thunder with Grey, but Meyer had years and years and could have announced the Midnight Sun release months ago to preempt the Grey buzz. Instead, I feel like she's sort of given up on writing, but still wanted to make a bit of a cash grab here (which worked-the book is right next to me as I type), and I wish she had rewarded the fans with Midnight Sun like we've been hoping for for since we stood in-line for Breaking Dawn and not a facsimile.
-We'll get into my thoughts on The Martian on Tuesday, but I actually really side with the Bitter Script Reader on this one, that The Martian works as a story in directions I hadn't expected, and is actually a throwback in a way to films like Apollo 13. Particularly the expository nature of the film, usually a death knell for me, actually works in the moment (even if I will say on occasion it felt like too much, but overall I was behind it).
-IndieWire has a great interview with Big Stone Gap author/director Adriana Trigiani whose film Big Stone Gap seems to be like a Hallmark film that you see on the Hallmark Channel (and not one that used to be on CBS Sundays), but it has a really impressive cast with Ashley Judd, Whoopi Goldberg, and Patrick Wilson so one wonders where the marketing budget was for the film. Trigiani is interesting both because she seems to be a writer who is making her novels springboards for films she plans on directing, and also because she talks openly about the need for Box Office to fund her projects. Though the reviews are pretty smelly so far, it's opening much wider than I had anticipated, particularly for a film almost no critics have checked-in on Rotten Tomatoes, so I'm curious how this ends up going. Audiences did, after all, used to love Ashley Judd at the movies. In Politics....
-National Journal profiled a growing problem that Hillary Clinton has on the campaign trail, and it has nothing to do with email servers-it has to do with the amount of men who are supporting her campaign. Clinton's campaign has, in my opinion, kind of ignored white men as a demographic group primarily because they aren't their target audience (Clinton is not going to win white men in the general election, and very likely if Biden gets in, not even in the primary). However, she needs to do better than 28% if she hopes to make it to the White House as African-Americans, Hispanics, and younger voters don't turn out enough even in a presidential election to make up this kind of a deficit and she needs to be at least ten-points better (it's also become quite clear that Clinton, barring something unforeseen on the Republican side, will not win by the same margins as Obama if she wins and so she needs to start finding ways to improve her standings in all demographics as this will be closer than 2008 or 2012). I wonder if she'll try and pivot a bit as the primary closes and she has the nomination toward wrapping up more white male voters with talks about issues more related to them (particularly gearing toward blue-collar male voters with talk about labor and shipping jobs overseas as that seemed to work in the 2008 primary), but this does appear to be a gap that Clinton will have to correct if she wants to become president.
-Politico looked at a growing problem for the opposite side-of-the-aisle, however, in the primaries. It's kind of staggering to believe, but while Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both have full-time staffs of more than fifty in Iowa already, no Republican candidate has a full-time staff of more than ten in any early primary state. This is likely being caused by the people with money not having their candidates (Bush, Rubio) at the top of the polls and non-traditional candidates like Donald Trump and Ben Carson (who don't have that GOTV experience) sitting at the top of the polls not really bothering with such traditional campaigns and trying to run an election through the national window (which won't work in a caucus state like Iowa). Clinton and Sanders are likely to gain a more experienced field team from their strategies, ready with ways to get out specific pockets of supporters and voters in critical swing states (lest we forget, of the first four primaries, only South Carolina isn't considered a tossup state). That ability to turn out voters and having experience and readiness with this specific candidate in GOTV could make the difference in a close election, and is something that is going to give the Democrats a leg-up if this ends up being a 2000/2004-style margin of victory.
-Though everyone is focusing on the White House right now, the battle for the Senate continues to rage and could be a major drip-effect of the White House battle as the Democrats try to reclaim their majority. This week was a good one for them, as unlike their counterparts in the House, their recruiting efforts have been much more robust, with a major coup in Gov. Maggie Hassan joining the battle, running against Sen. Kelly Ayotte in Hew Hampshire. I am planning a State of the Senate article this week, but know that Hassan's entry into this race makes it perhaps the biggest race of the cycle (two popular incumbents, a notoriously swing-y swing state, and a decent chance this race could get the Democrats to a tie in the Senate all add up to a major political event). There's also worries and rumblings in Kentucky over Rand Paul's lack of interest in his reelection there, particularly considering that he has anemic poll numbers in his race for the White House. While I am a little weary after 2014 that a Democrat can actually score here and Adam Edelen will be accused of using his State Auditor race as a stepping stone to the Senate (that is, if he wins there in a few weeks), Paul v. Edelen would be a race to watch if the presidential contender has lost support from those back home who think he's more focused on his own ambitions than on Kentucky's. Shameless Self-Promotion... -The Koch Brothers auditions for president are about the most disgusting thing I've ever heard. YouTube Video of the Week...
I love this video of Hillary Clinton talking about what Bill was like when they moved Chelsea into Stanford:
Just One More...
-Apparently I'm going to be a little obsessed with The Martian for a few days, as I wanted to share this look from NASA of where Matt Damon's character in the film would actually have been on Mars. I love the renewed interest in space travel that Gravity, Interstellar, and now The Martian have spurred in the populace, and am hoping that translates into real life.
It's such an omnipresent aspect of our life that we sometimes forget it, but the internet is amazing. The fact that from almost any corner of the globe you can log on and find out everything from the score to the 1982 Super Bowl to the main exports of Thailand to thousands of opinions on basically any political issue to what your ex-boyfriend's new cat looks like in a Katy Perry outfit-it's stunning. The internet may be about as close to world peace as we'll get in my lifetime (or anyone's lifetime), considering that it's such a great equalizer and gives voice to so many.
And yet, it's also worth remembering that the internet is also a horrible place, particularly if you're a minority, where trolling and the ugliness of random comments sections have made it commonplace to see the cruelest and most vile of language. This, like the internet's crazy awesomeness, has become so commonplace that we just ignore it. We watch a YouTube video knowing that the comments section will be littered with profanity and bile for the creator of the clip. We see the most mundane of tweets from our favorite celebrities turn into a reason to write horrific messages and even dangerous-sounding threats.
So I first want to applaud Ashley Judd for saying, "enough is enough" here. Anti-bullying campaigns have become, in this author's opinion, a tad bit ridiculous in that they are too large in scope and because some of the people who espouse them (cough Perez Hilton cough Lady Gaga) end up bullying others just as frequently. However here we have a much more specific scope to look within, as Ms. Judd is specifically calling out those who threaten her with violence and with horrible language.
Under the law, it's worth noting, of course, that Ms. Judd has recourse only in a few of these cases. Threats or violent statements made against the actress should be followed up on and prosecuted. These sorts of things happen with haunting regularity on social media, and I think that sites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube should take a more proactive stance against them, because they are not only illegal but extremely frightening. The CEO of Twitter himself has commented on how the company has done a poor job of addressing this, and they need to do a better job of partnering with law enforcement to prosecute people who say violent or threatening things online. Not only will this mean that these criminals (because that's what they are) are sentenced for their behavior, but it would hopefully decelerate such speech elsewhere online.
Because unfortunately, as heinous and horrible as some of the remaining speech is, it's technically under the umbrella of freedom of speech. This isn't to say that it's right, and it's a weird sort of conundrum, since if someone said some of these things in person to Ms. Judd, it would border certainly on harassment and perhaps they would be arrested, or at least subject to a restraining order. And that might be what happens here, because freedom of speech is something we value, but it's not something that should come without consequences. Political speech, for example, is something that frequently has consequences-you can say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that other people shouldn't be able to react to you or forced to nod courteously with you. "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," is an argument frequently trotted out in arguments for Freedom of Speech, but it seems to imply that you simply turn the other cheek. If someone does something truly awful that is deeply prejudiced or insulting to a group of people or to a person, it's not just time to ignore or click unfriend, it's also the time to publicly deride such a person. People frequently talk about how trolls just want attention, but they also don't want any ramifications for their ridiculousness, and Freedom of Speech doesn't necessarily mean Freedom from Repercussions or Absolute Anonymity.
Perhaps that's the solution here, in fact, with someone of Ms. Judd's celebrity taking the reigns of the story. Inevitably some people are going to be exposed for the online hatemongers that they are, and while they may simply get a restraining order, the damage is going to be done, and I have a hard time feeling sympathy for them or worrying about freedom of expression taking a huge hit here. People frequently tell celebrities or public figures to suck it up and take it, that's what happens when you're famous, but that doesn't just apply to movie stars. Everyone has the right to say or hear anything they so choose, but when you decide to, in a public forum, publicly lambast, deride, and harass a public figure in a way that you wouldn't dream of doing in real life, you open yourself up for the ramifications of that speech. You won't be sent to jail if you call someone something ugly, but the court of public opinion has the right to weigh in as well.
Well, that didn't take long. Two of the most recent posts have updates to share!
Proving that my Top Ten skills need some work, it was the Number Six seed, Sen. Kay Hagan, who became the latest senator to endorse gay marriage. Sen. Hagan's decision has qute a bit of political bravery behind it-North Carolina rather decidedly passed a gay marriage ban a couple of years ago, and there is definitely a possibility that the senator could lose some votes next year in her re-election bid as a result. So, for those who always complain about wanting a politician that puts principle before politics, look no further.
And in other Senate related news, Ashley Judd has passed on her rumored Senate bid. As I pointed out previously, this is probably for the best, as it seems we'll have the best Democratic candidate that we could possibly recruit to this race, as Alison Lundergan Grimes appears to be strongly interested in a run.
Ashley Judd, who became popular in the late 1990's with film roles in movies like Kiss the Girls and Double Jeopardy, is an actress that despite some awards love (she's a Golden Globe and Emmy nominee) never really got a Pretty Woman or While You Were Sleeping or Legally Blonde to cement her as an America's Sweetheart style actress, which seemed to be where she was heading (her career, during its heyday, bounced pretty solidly between romantic comedies and thrillers, making her on-par stylistically with Sandra Bullock).
While she hasn't given up on acting in recent years, success hasn't been as forthcoming (her Emmy-nominated work in Missing doesn't count since it was never intended to be a miniseries, despite its latter designation). Instead, she's used her millions and her celebrity to highlight causes special to her heart, and unlike a lot of celebrities who write a check and occasionally show up for a televised fundraiser, she's walked the walk, travelling the globe fighting AIDS, poverty, and giving more opportunities to women. Really admirable work, and if the Academy ever gets over its aversion to giving out Honorary Oscars to women, she'd be a fine recipient someday of the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.
However, when it comes to her latest venture, I have to admit to being quite leery. Ms. Judd seems very intent on running for the U.S. Senate against Mitch McConnell, and in recent days has basically said as much while hitting the campaign trail. Liberals are cheering at the thought of someone taking down the Senate Minority Leader, and with her natural charisma and 100% name recognition, there are some attributes in Judd's corner to make the case for her running.
However, those attributes are nothing when you compare them with the unfortunate negatives that come with her candidacy. For starters, while the Judds have a strong Kentucky background, she's been living in Tennessee for years, which gives the impact of a carpetbagger mentality that has sunk candidates before (why she doesn't primary Jim Cooper, since she's likely in his district, is beyond me as that's a safe House seat and Cooper is way too conservative to represent it). In addition to this, Judd's politics just don't mesh well with a conservative state like Kentucky-candidates like Al Franken, probably the best recent comparison one can make to Judd, win because they happen to be running in blue states. Al Franken wouldn't have stood a prayer somewhere like Kentucky; you need someone like a Heidi Heitkamp or a Joe Manchin to win a red state as a Democrat-someone who can connect with voters while also toeing the moderate line. Ashley Judd is way, WAY to liberal (god love her) to be able to win in a red state.
I wouldn't have this much to say if it weren't for one other factor. If Ashley Judd were running in Wyoming or Utah, I'd say great, have at it-maybe we'll get the other side distracted enough that we'll be able to get them to spend money that could go to more pivotal races like South Dakota or North Carolina. However, Kentucky is not an impossible race to win for the Democrats, we just need the right candidate-though it's hardly competitive on a presidential level, Mitch McConnell won his last race by just six-points, the state has a (conservative) Democratic governor, and when an incumbent has a 37% approval rating, that's a recipe for a victory if the Democrats have the right candidate, and can create the perfect storm. The Democrats have that candidate too: Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, who won an open seat race four years ago by over 20-points (better than any other Democrat that year, and better than almost every statewide bid by Mitch McConnell). Now, running for Secretary of State isn't the same thing as running for the Senate, but those numbers are too impressive not to want to court her for the seat.
So, Ashley, while I admire you lighting a fire in this race, and would be 100% behind you running in a more liberal backyard, please take a pass and endorse Grimes for the Senate in 2014. The causes you are espousing are going to do a lot more good with a Democrat in this seat than a Republican, and that's a circumstance you just can't deliver.
