Monday, November 23, 2009

Someone remind me again: What exactly ARE the rules that Nicole Kidman won't play by?


Believe it or not, the battery that starts Norma Shearer's motor car also curls Norma's hair. This curling iron saves the trouble and expense of sending a hairdresser on location trips...
And Anita Page has found the perfect solution to damage to cars caused by sandy shoes after a trip to the beach: For twenty-five cents she bought this shoe brush and attached it to the running-board. Just the old door-mat brought up to date...
These are just two of a selection of Motoring Beauty Hints brought to you by Photoplay Magazine back in the thirties.
You'll have to find out for yourself how Jean Arthur has solved the problem of how to wear a floppy hat in an open roadster.
.
When you immerse yourself in old movie fan magazines, as I have been doing lately, you enter just this lost world; one far more lost, far deader in comparison with its modern equivalents, than that of the movies themselves. It is one where the stars - playing parts every bit as much as when on screen - attempt to ingratiate themselves with their public by pulling off the daunting juggling act of being unapproachable icons of perfection and swell ordinary folks at one and the same time. It's a relationship of mutual need: the magazines need the stars and the stars need the magazines, and both are concerned with grasping and retaining the fickle attentions of the voracious American movie fan.
The magazines are sheer fantasies for the most part, and give no fairer a picture of what life in Hollywood was really like than Hollywood Babylon does at the other extreme. But the contrast between magazine publicity pieces then and now is striking indeed.
.
They've always sold illusions, untouched by reality or even the pretence of it. Both present the hallowed object of desire in the light best tailored to their public's tastes and aspirations. But there is a humility to the old star pieces, even when celebrating their conspicuous wealth and consumption, quite alien to the preening aristocracy of the modern Hollywood firmament. Long gone are the days when an interview with an actress would consist of a heartfelt thank you to all her fans for keeping her in a life of luxury followed by a recipe for meatloaf.
A bit of swanning about is one thing, I guess. But I might be more warmly disposed to modern film stars if they didn't insist on taking themselves so damned seriously.
.
The cover star of GQ magazine this month is Nicole Kidman, an Australian actress who - it would be folly to deny - scrubs up rather nicely, but who seems to suffering from the delusion that she is some kind of artist making a deep and meaningful contribution to the cultural history of her species. That she is able to do all this while still wearing underwear in artistically-arranged disarray is all the more tribute to her, but still, I'm confused.
"Give me risk, danger, darkness..." she says on the cover, above a headline reading, Nicole Kidman Still Won't Play By The Rules.
.
What does this mean? I know what Motherhood - What It Means To Helen Twelvetrees means. I know what Why Girls Fall In Love With Robert Taylor means, what Career Comes First With Loretta and Joan Grabs The Bennett Spotlight and How I Keep My Figure by Betty Grable all mean... but I'm buggered if I know what these rules are that Nicole still won't play by.
Perhaps the article itself will enlighten me. Nope.
.
Nicole Kidman cuts through the leaden darkness like an apparition. It is immediately apparent why so many directors have tried to capture her powerful physical presence on film... her sex appeal radiates almost exothermically. Even at 42 her skin is as white as ewe's milk, her eyes wickedly blue, her features raised, taut and coltish... Perhaps, I wonder, Nicole Kidman only feeds off sunlight to survive? Or admiration? Or men's wanton souls?
.
Okay, whatever. It has always been the interviewer's lot to absurdly romanticise their subjects, and this big ninny eulogising Nicole's wickedly taut and exothermically coltish ewe's milk is not really so far from the acres of adoring purple once lavished on Errol Flynn, or Gable, or Garbo.
But there is an unmistakable arrogance here, a lack of reciprocation that was never tolerated in the golden age. (The old magazines are full of warnings, or 'advice', to cocky stars: What's the matter with Lombard? asks Gladys Hall in Modern Screen; Watch Your Step, Ann Dvorak! warns Delight Evans in Screen Book.) Nicole couldn't care less about the box-office success of her films, she opines, as if she has some pre-ordained right to keep making them regardless of whether anybody wants to go see them or not, as if she bestows her majesty upon us not at our invitation but by some cinematic variation of the divine right of kings.
Robert Taylor put his name to a lament in Modern Screen entitled "Why Did I Slip?", asking his fans why they have forsaken him. Though presumably ghosted like virtually all such articles of the time, its plaintive humility is touching:
.
What are the contributing factors that cause a star to fall? Do you get tired of his face? Is it a question of bad stories? How much does adverse publicity have to do with it?... Don't think we stars don't realise when we begin to wobble. We don't soar around with our heads blandly in the blue while our feet are walking the plank... In my case it may well be said that I skidded because I'm not a fine actor. I know I'm not.
.
And so on, for paragraph after agonising paragraph, until you just want to scoop the poor sap up in your arms, plant a big smacker on his forehead and feed him warm broth with a spoon.
But now listen to Nicole reflecting on the facts that her last two movies were hugely expensive commercial disasters and that she has not made a commercially successful film in nearly ten years:
.
To be honest with you, it's never been important to me... I have very avant-garde tastes - that's just what I'm drawn to . Sometimes that means working on tiny, often unheard-of artistic endeavours, sometimes it means working with the likes of Baz on movies like Australia or Moulin Rouge which make big, bold, epic statements. I was raised on art and literature, and things that were left of centre... I make films that aren't everybody's cup of tea, I realise that. I get it. But that's where I am. If I were a painter I certainly wouldn't be painting for the masses. And I'm unwavering on this. I want to take risks... I like existing in an uncomfortable place artistically... I hope my life will be a mix of extreme love and bold artistic choices. I've never wanted to be safe. I've never chosen safe relationships. And I've never chosen safe films.
.
Ah yes! Who among us can forget the wanton avoidance of safety that led her to play the love interest in Batman Forever? The left of centre, masses-be-damned risk-taking of bold artistic choices like the remake of The Stepford Wives? Or the sheer danger of the Bewitched spin-off?
.
Forgive me while I rush back to My Wartime Morals, by Bonita Granville.

17 comments:

DEZMOND said...

Although I'm not really a fan of Nicole, she did have some daring roles in DOGVILLE and BIRTH. Those definitely weren't "SAFE" roles.

DEZMOND said...

forgot to notice something - is it just me or her gloved hand in this GQ pic really looks rather scary and odd in some way? :)Or is she just being wooden as usually?

Steve Miller, Writer of Stuff said...

Dezmond: My money's on 'wooden.'

The last movie Kidman good in was 'Dead Calm.'

Amanda said...

Not a big fan of Kidman. She seems so cold to me.

And as for making art, art is just another way of saying you made a bad movie. Not always the case of course, but the Bewitched spinoff speaks for itself.

Give me a good vintage movie mag anyday! Loved your post today!

Elizabeth said...

Really great point! I'd much rather read about a star's favorite recipe or favorite trick for fingerwaves than a slobbering, drooling love-fest that we get so often!

Andrew: Encore Entertainment said...

Geez. I guess you're not a fan. You can't really blame Nicole for the crap the writer is doing, obviously he's doing a horrible job of selling his subject. And obviously back in the 90s she was just starting her career, she wasn't able to get all those avant garde roles she seeks. I don't think it's the fact that she only does strange roles, it's the fact that she'll do The Others, while filming Moulin Rouge!, or followup a crowd pleaser [debatable] like The Stepford Wives with something like Dogville, Fur or Margot at the Wedding. She's unpredictable, those are the rules she's breaking.

Kate Gabrielle said...

Wow, I couldn't agree more!! And as a "visual artist" as she calls it, even I have a hard time calling myself an artist or referring to the things I produce as art- I think you really have to reach a certain level of egotism before you can do that (a level which she has obviously reached if she can refer to the pitiful Bewitched remake, let alone her more "daring" movies, as artwork)

But regardless of whether or not you like the current crop of movies coming out today- and whether or not you think those movies are daring- the main point you've hit upon is the humility that's missing from today's actors and actresses. A lot of them like to "give back" through charities, but they never actually thank their public admirers in interviews (or even in the Oscars-- when is the last time someone said "thank you for coming to see it" ??) That Robert Taylor piece is such a great example, acknowledging that your career is in the hands of the movie-going public, and asking them what they'd like to see, or what went wrong when the box office returns aren't quite what they used to be.

An exceptional, fantastic post!!

Matthew Coniam said...

Thanks to everyone who has left a comment: an interesting spread of opinion...

Let me stress that I have nothing in particular against Kidman. She just happened to be on the cover of GQ this month, and is a good - but far from unique - example of the kind of pretentiousness that is everywhere in modern Hollywood. I don't think she's all that bad an actress - indeed, in Eyes Wide Shut her well-judged performance exposed the fundamental inadequacy of Tom Cruise as an actor more cruelly than any of his other co-stars in other films.
But...
One thing I would like to say in response, though, is that I think some of us are playing fast and loose with this safe/dangerous business.
The implication seems to be that the big-budget dross like Bewitched is safe, and the quirkier arthouse films are the riskier, more dangerous ones.
But 'safe' usually means commercially safe, that is to say unchallenging but geared simplistically (and successfully) to the box-office. And though conceptually films like Australia and Bewitched may be the essence of safe, the first weekend's takings soon proved them otherwise. Seems to me that if you've got a big summer movie to launch, there are few stars less safe to headline them than Nicole.
Now, as it happens, I'm no more a fan of modern indie/arty cinema than I am of Hollywood popcorn movies. It strikes me that their clientele is every bit as undemanding - in fact, probably more so. If you compare the takings of films like Dogville with something like Stepford Wives, once adjusted in ratio to their relative prodcution costs, you'll probably find that these more 'challenging' films are actually bigger hits. Because the art house crowd are rather less fickle than their multiplex neighbours, it seems to me that it is these films that are actually the safe ones.

They're certainly safe from me.

Sarah said...

Great point and great post! Kind makes me wish we still had the studio system and publicity machines (sans all the corruption, of course) of the classic film era.

Mykal said...

Matthew: Listening to Kidman prattle on about herself really makes me long for the old days of studio power. I think there is much to be said for the firm, unyielding hand of a ruthless tyrant like Mayer or Goldman. Either of these carnivorous animals in suits would have quickly reduced our bold artist into a gibbering, terrified child begging for a role. Lose Louis B. Mayer money? For ten years? It gives me a chill to think about it.

Of course it could have never happened. Excellent product like Kidman wouldn't have been allowed to mismanage her career so badly. Five minutes in the office with Mayer - staring into those small, cold, dead eyes - and our bold Ms. Kidman would have been wetting herself, begging Mr. Mayer for another chance to follow the rules.

It is our own fault, really. We have told them that they are special and better than us, and god knows they believe it. I applaud Ms. Kidman her dewy skin and blue eyes, but all I really want to know about her personal philosophy of life is how she deals with wearing a floppy hat in an open roadster.

Great post my friend. As usual, I agree with your sarcastic, jaundiced view. -- Mykal

Mykal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mykal said...

sorry to many typos in last post. I'll try again -

A short note to Andrew: "unpredictable" is the fallback position for poor choices and some very cardboard acting in some very, very commercial films. Moulin Rouge was a huge budget, Hollywood blockbuster; chocked full of mega-salary stars - hardly the small and daring art film that would rate an "unpredictable" choice.

Besides, she's become very predictable: a Kidman film belly flops like a fat kid diving into the shallow end. -- Mykal

Gloria said...

"The magazines are sheer fantasies for the most part, and give no fairer a picture of what life in Hollywood was really like than Hollywood Babylon does at the other extreme"

Hear! Hear! I could name journalist who still take "Hollywood Babylon" or "Confidential magazine" as "serious, reliable, sources"

As for an actors's duty to Art (with a capital A): personally, I think that any actor of some ambition will be interested in getting good roles even if that means taking certain chances (i.e.: lack of box-office success, poor reviews). Still, life is hard and from an actor's phenomenal filmography, he/she will consider himself (or herself) lucky if he/she's got at least two or three fulfilling, significant works to be remembered for... the rest of the work will be, most of the time,, a well-delivered piece of acting in an unremarkable -or doomed to oblivion- film... I'm well aware that actors have to pay bills as the rest of mortals do ;p

I am not a purist in this regard, and I always laugh a lot when I read/hear Peter Ustinov being judgemental about Charles Laughton for "wasting his talent" in certain Hollywood films (Ah, Ustinov: "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye")

I mean, sometimes I see Alida Valli just being remembered for failing to be "the New Garbo" in "The Paradine Case", but here's a lady that has been in "Les yeux sans visage", "The Third Man", "Senso" or "Dialogue des Carmelites", a lady, in short, that belongs to Film History.

In fact, an actor just needs one memorable role: What if Maria Falconetti just did three films? She just needed one to become immortal.

Matthew Coniam said...

Thanks, Sarah, Mykal and Gloria.

Yes, I'm a totally unapologetic fan of the studio system and the monsters that ran it. Was it Churchill who described democracy as the worst imaginable political system except for all the others? That's sort of how I feel about the studio system. For all their faults and indulgences, they kept so much else in check.

Gloria - I never knew Ustinov said that about Laughton. Ustinov of all people! Surely the very definition of the phenomenon he was describing!

Mykal - I love that image of little Nicole in Mayer's office! What? refusing to play Jane in the next Tarzan picture? You're on suspension young lady!
Just a better world.

La Faustin said...

I can't be the only one of your readers dying to explore old movie magazines in the service of an obscure cinematic pash -- how can it be done? Have you acquired a personal collection over the years? Is there some kind of central exchange for like-minded fanatics (virtual or, ideally, housed in a clubbable old manse)?

Mykal said...

A bunch of us going over those old magazines in a "clubbable ole manse." Now that's a club I would join. -- Mykal

Matthew Coniam said...

Count me in on the manse too. If the air fares prove prohibitive, perhaps we should start a virtual manse. Actually, I'm not entirely sure what a manse is, but it sounds good to me.
The old mags are really easy to come by and not expensive: they go for a song online and in junk shops and the like, and quality is guaranteed: there's bound to be something of interest in all of them.
I also have two invaluable highlight compilation books well worth tracking down: 'Hollywood and the Great Fan Magazines' edited by Martin Levin, and 'Photoplay Treasury' edited by Barbara Gelman, both US publications from the late seventies/early eighties.
Best,
Matthew