A few years ago, one of my screenwriting teachers got me addicted to Entertainment Weekly magazine. And, true to its title, I do generally find it really entertaining. Most of the time, its commentaries are insightful and informed, and its criticism is well-considered and based on knowledge and understanding. But then…
I cracked open my mailbox today and scooped out my current issue of said periodical…and I saw a pic of one of my favorite performers, Jennifer Garner. Seriously, it takes chops to make an outlandish character like Sydney Bristo believable and appealing.
So I focused my retinas on the ensuing article. It was a filmy little treatise on popular actors and the odds of each sustaining a feature film career. The author had aimed his sights first on Garner, presenting his thesis and stating his (in my opinion, specious) case that Jen has an uphill climb. The same Jennifer who made the Forbes Magazine “Power 100” list in 2005. On what does the writer base his doubt? I couldn’t really find any viable justification.
Sidebar: this blurb briefly won me back by announcing that La Garner had signed on for an upcoming Jason Reitman project called Juno, a script I read last year and thought was so unique and so clever that it would surely never see the light of day.
Next, EW set their uninformed sights on the likes of Hugh Grant, ruminating as to whether an audience can accept him as anything but the “stammering-yet-charming” love interest he plays in his usually popular romantic comedies. The questioning of Grant’s dramatic credentials made me question, for the first time, whether EW has any fact-checkers on staff. The article attempted to make its case for doubting Grant’s ability to carry a dramatic role by pronouncing that a foray into more serious territory would be ill-fated. And to support this argument, the article referred to a movie called American Dreamz.
As a confessed TV addict, I watch a lot of videos; in doing so, I laugh in the face of critics who try to save me from squandering my precious moments of life. Well, in the case of Dreamz, I wish I’d heeded them. This film did not tank because Hugh Grant let us down; it failed because it was one of the suckiest, most insipid, and underdeveloped premises ever committed to script.
Moreover, if the EW writer had taken the roughly sixty seconds required to scan Grant’s IMDB.com page, he would have discovered a list of titles that includes some of the following: Sirens (one of the best Grant performances ever—you must check this one out), Sense and Sensibility, Impromptu, and Remains of Day, among many other equally great offerings that sold more than a few tickets in their day.
In a later segment, this journalist poses the question of whether “public goodwill” will revitalize Michelle Pfeiffer’s career. Could he be any more condescending to someone who is one of the best actresses of her generation and one of the most beautiful women on the face of the earth? (Not to mention the wife of one of the most prolific, successful TV writer/producers in history. Hey, look it up. Why should I do all your work for you?) I think whether the “public” (whoever that means) says so or not, this Oscar-nominated actress—with a large, critically acclaimed catalog of films dressing the shelves of video stores everywhere—will be delighting audiences for a long time to come, or I’ll eat a vat full of carbs!
Now, I’m sorry for sounding like a raving madwoman over what amounts to a trivial slice of celebrity hash, but if you’re lucky enough to get to write for one of the top entertainment chronicles, you should either come up with a better premise or find better arguments to support any premise you’ve proposed, instead of insulting some award-winning and, quite frankly, very popular talent.
If you’re gonna seriously question the success or longevity of would-be film icons, can we not focus our microscopes on the likes of Beyoncé? Or Kristin Kreuk, the robotic Lana Lang on the otherwise delightful Smallville…or that guy on CSI: NY with the bad haircut and really crappy Brooklyn accent? How eagerly does this so-called “public” await their next career moves? And what, if anything, is in their filmographies to convince anyone that they should care?
As far as I’m concerned, until they’ve submitted themselves to a couple years practicing the techniques of Strasberg or Meisner, journalists should refrain from analyzing the job security of proven professionals. Anyone’s agent can talk a client into a bad choice now and again. But such folk as Hugh, Jen, and Michelle have CV’s that clearly speak for themselves.
Kisskiss.
