Lucy, an exercise in Hollywood absurdity

[Black Dog]

Of course it does.

No it doesn't. The idea that an actor would somehow be immune to vanity projects because he's older and already established is specious. In fact, vanity projects are almost exclusively the domain of such actors. (FTR, I'm not saying All is Lost is a vanity project, but if UtS is, then by your criteria, All is Lost would certainly qualify.)

That makes no sense. Why would they use their clout and status to make a movie they did not care about?

Typo. I meant to write "that they and no others care about." That's a vanity project.

Opprobium: harsh criticism, vilification, public disgrace.

Could ya dial down the hyperbole? Thanks.

If you dial down the pedantry, sure.

SJ is at the place where she is getting leading roles but she isn't really getting great roles, the ones that guarantee big paydays.

I don't think money is an issue for her. She could retire now and live off the proceeds of just one of the Marvel movies she's been in.

I've pointed out how others have done the same thing by doing movies in the same vein as Lucy and Under The Skin.

To be clear: you think she's trying to leverage appearances in relatively small films like these to get into blockbusters? Or? Lots of actors split time between small films they care about and big blockbuster numbers. Including the actors you mention.

Because Jolie represents a career path that SJ is obviously seeking and is obviously emulating.

In what way, exactly?

All the rest of those noted have taken a different path so far than Jolie/SJ, and all of them have better work and better paydays than her(with the exception of Hoffman now.)

What path have they taken that SJ has not?

[overthere]

No it doesn't. The idea that an actor would somehow be immune to vanity projects because he's older and already established is specious. In fact, vanity projects are almost exclusively the domain of such actors. (FTR, I'm not saying All is Lost is a vanity project, but if UtS is, then by your criteria, All is Lost would certainly qualify.)

I've made my point twice now, but I can see you refuse to understand.

I'll make it as simple as I can. Redford has no need of a vanity project. SJ thought she did. Redford did not make one with All Is LOst. She did.

It's s stage that some actors have, and Redford is far past that. She is not.

I don't think money is an issue for her. She could retire now and live off the proceeds of just one of the Marvel movies she's been in.

Now you're getting closer, by accident apparently.

What motivates actors? How do they measure success in their business. Money and attention. She is getting OK roles but the great roles go to others. She is making good money but the big money goes to others. How does she go about changing that? How does she get producers to take her seriously? Hint: not by making Marvel movies. They make money, but they don't get your name on the A list for the 'serious' roles.

Money and approval......

Vin Diesel makes big bucks too.

To be clear: you think she's trying to leverage appearances in relatively small films like these to get into blockbusters?

No. Lucy was not small budget and had wide release. Briefly. Try to see the roles she had in those two movies, and how they differed from her previous work.

In what way, exactly?

By actively seeking vanity projects at the same point in her career. It worked like gangbusters for Jolie. Jolie is very intelligent, she recognized that her looks would fade and she has leveraged her acting career into other opportunities now. In the meantime, her vanity movies generated some great paydays and propelled her for years to the very front of the daily Hollywood infatuation with itself.

What path have they taken that SJ has not?

Getting better roles through more talent. The two men I mentioned took a very long time in Hollywood terms to get there.

[Black Dog]

I've made my point twice now, but I can see you refuse to understand.

I'll make it as simple as I can. Redford has no need of a vanity project. SJ thought she did. Redford did not make one with All Is LOst. She did.

It's s stage that some actors have, and Redford is far past that. She is not.

One: by your own definition of vanity project, AIL is a vanity project:

Did you notice Johanssen was in pretty much every scene? That makes it a vanity flick IMO.

As for the idea that Redford doesn't need to do a vanity project, hell, no one needs to do one. But they get made anyway, usually by people with the power and prestige to get them made. You know: people like Robert Redford.

Two: your definition of vanity project is completely off from what people usually mean when they talk about such things. I've already explained what that is and why none of the movies we're talking about qualify. Under teh Skin could be called a vanity project, but the vanity is Jonathan Glazer's.

Now you're getting closer, by accident apparently.

What motivates actors? How do they measure success in their business. Money and attention. She is getting OK roles but the great roles go to others. She is making good money but the big money goes to others. How does she go about changing that? How does she get producers to take her seriously? Hint: not by making Marvel movies. They make money, but they don't get your name on the A list for the 'serious' roles.

Money and approval......

Vin Diesel makes big bucks too.

Yes, the actress who has worked with Woody Allen, Spike Jonez, Sophia Coppola, Christopher Nolan, the Coen Brothers is desperate for producers to take her seriously.

Or you know, she's making the movies she wants to make, just as many others do. Lord knows she's already banked enough to last a few lifetimes.

No. Lucy was not small budget and had wide release. Briefly. Try to see the roles she had in those two movies, and how they differed from her previous work.

Which previous work? Ghost World? Her? The Avengers? Match Point? Don Jon?

By actively seeking vanity projects at the same point in her career. It worked like gangbusters for Jolie. Jolie is very intelligent, she recognized that her looks would fade and she has leveraged her acting career into other opportunities now. In the meantime, her vanity movies generated some great paydays and propelled her for years to the very front of the daily Hollywood infatuation with itself.

Except that ScarJo isn't doing vanity projects. Jolie didn't either, really, until she moved behind the camera.

Getting better roles through more talent.

That they've got better roles is highly debatable. J-Law was great in Winter's Bone, but the rest of her non-franchise stuff has been middlebrow at best. Chastain has carried exactly one major film so far in her career and she's seven years older than Johansson.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Black Dog

[kimmy]

I think there's two different points to make in regard to Overthere's comments regarding "vanity movies".

First, the part where Overthere declares Under The Skin to be a "vanity movie" by meeting his criteria, but then rationalizes other movies that meet the same criteria as being "just the way it's written" or "Redford has nothing to prove". It gives the impression that there's something in your definition of a vanity movie that you've failed to articulate, or that there's some amount of personal bias involved in the decision.

Second, there's the part where Overthere's definition of a vanity movie is different from everybody else's.

Here's a big list of vanity movies:

http://fadeinonline.com/the-30-worst-vanity-projects-of-all-time.html

These movies have a number of common characteristics:

-people used their industry clout to get projects made that probably shouldn't have gotten made (nobody aside from Will Smith thought that moviegoers wanted to see Jaden Smith as an action hero, for example. Nobody aside from John Travolta thought that the world needed to see L. Ron Hubbard's crazy-man writings turned into a movie.)

-peoples' vanity (hence the name...) led them to overestimate their abilities (singers thinking they can act, actors thinking they can direct, directors thinking they can write, etc...)

-they were commercial and artistic failures

...hard to see how either of the films in question-- Lucy, and Under the Skin-- have anything in common with any of these movies. Lucy was a big commercial success, far exceeding box office expectations. Under The Skin was a small-budget art-house limited release. Both received mixed but generally positive reviews. Neither project has Johansson in any capacity other than acting.

Luc Besson apparently contacted Scarlett personally about starring in Lucy. The film could have been made with any number of other actresses, but probably wouldn't have grossed $450 million with anybody else. If there's an element of vanity, this might be it: there aren't a lot of movies headlined by women, and she got a chance to prove that she could put butts in seats as a headliner. She succeeded beyond all expectations. (I suspect it's her ongoing role as The Black Widow in the Marvel blockbusters that have led to this, rather than participating in Woody Allen stuff, btw.)

As for Under the Skin, lots of actors with less stature than Johansson put their time into smaller, less-commercial productions. It's not the sort of thing reserved for big name actors; usually it's rather the opposite, it's a rarity when bigger names participate in this sort of venture. Anthony Hopkins was in Kim County recently filming one such film; everybody who encountered him was delighted with him and the rest of the cast.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

What motivates actors?

Actors or Hollywood actors ?

Hollywood actors are a strange subset of actors. As an actor, I was always asked about movie or TV roles I had. It struck me as odd that people would think that everybody who acts has an ambition to get that kind of attention. It would be like asking everybody who played pickup hockey if they are hoping to get into the professional leagues somehow.

How do they measure success in their business. Money and attention.

Yes ! Maybe money, attention, and love.

Men want to be... maybe... Tom Hanks. Win oscars, make big box office too. Women... maybe Meryl Streep ?

[Michael Hardner]

Here's a big list of vanity movies:

http://fadeinonline.com/the-30-worst-vanity-projects-of-all-time.html

Great list, Kimmy. Deserves its own thread IMO. And your criteria for labeling these is spot on.

[Michael Hardner]

Men want to be... maybe... Tom Hanks. Win oscars, make big box office too. Women... maybe Meryl Streep ?

Edited to add:

Imagine being a Brad Pitt, or a Phillip Seymour Hoffman... the former doomed to a Tom-Cruise-like commercial career until the obligatory 'honourary Oscar'... the latter doomed to scrape by for years, with the risk of falling out of fashion always there.

[cybercoma]

Will Smith is the king of vanity films. For the love of all that is good, please stop trying to make Jaden happen. He's not going to happen.

[AngusThermopyle]

Agreed Cyber. Frankly I've never been a fan of Smith. To me the vast majority of his work is basically just fluff, but then fluff does sell. After Earth was actually painful to watch, his kid was awful with that perpetually stunned expression on his face. As for his version of The Omega Man, I Am Legend, well Charlton nailed it while Smith just ended up looking like a tepid copy. I should add that I thought I Am Legend fit neatly into the vanity category. I just hate that he took a great story like The Omega Man and turned it into...well I'm not really sure what he turned it into.

Edited January 8, 2015 by AngusThermopyle

[eyeball]

The best satire always leaves a few who are completely oblivious to what is going on.

That's what makes it the best.

[overthere]

It gives the impression that there's something in your definition of a vanity movie that you've failed to articulate, or that there's some amount of personal bias involved in the decision.

I'll try again, and had no idea I was so unclear.

Is there anything in my life or yours that is not biased?

My definition of a vanity movie is one that is undertaken by an artist specifically to further their career, to attract attention, to move them to the next level in their business. They are typically done by actors at the level where Johansson is now: near the top but not at the top. That's why Redfords effort is not a vanity movie for me, he has nothing to move to as an actor and zero need to promote himself.

people used their industry clout

.....to select roles that are intended to focus almost entirely on them. SJ is at the level where she can control what she works on, and in 2014 she chose movies that focused on her.

[Black Dog]

I'll try again, and had no idea I was so unclear.

Is there anything in my life or yours that is not biased?

My definition of a vanity movie is one that is undertaken by an artist specifically to further their career, to attract attention, to move them to the next level in their business. They are typically done by actors at the level where Johansson is now: near the top but not at the top. That's why Redfords effort is not a vanity movie for me, he has nothing to move to as an actor and zero need to promote himself.

The problem is no one else uses that definition.

[WIP]

Superficially that may be true, but the development and longevity of I Love Lucy represents many significant elements of Hollywood radio, television, and movie production. The show was wildly successful for CBS, and spawned Desilu Productions which eventually became Paramount Television. Notable Desilu programs included Mannix, Star Trek, Mission Impossible, and of course, The Lucy Show.

I Love Lucy..Live on Stage...is currently touring at theatres in the U.S. and Canada.

A dog with a note in his mouth could sell a film screenplay idea about I Love Lucy.

I'm not all that impressed by most of the product that came out of the studio later on. What's really important is that, in the early days of television, everyone was working without a map....trying to figure out what to put on the new medium. Most shows were either talkingheads, televised plays (some were very high quality) and radio&vaudeville routines performed by experienced comedians who made the jump from network radio to television in the 50's.

It was Lucy who was the first to present something that was really new and different from radio and stage performance, and show others how to present comedy on the small screen. Every sitcom since I Love Lucy has followed their template.

Some of those other hit shows leave a little to be desired. When I was 10 to 13 years old and a Mad Magazine fanatic, Mad had the best parody of Mission Impossible, where Jim Phelps gives his colleagues their mission: "we have to turn 10 minutes worth of plot into a suspenseful, hour-long action drama!" Then again, that could describe the Mission Impossible movies also!

Desilu/Paramount, didn't know what to do with Star Trek! From the Star Trek documentary, it seemed pretty clear that the vision for Star Trek, began an ended with its creator Gene Rodenberry, who had to fight...risking cancellation right from the pilot episode by including a multiracial cast along with a humanoid alien (Spock), no mention of God or religion...the studio tried to force a chapel into the Enterprize, which Rodenberry refused. He cast his real life wife as "No. 1" - 2nd in command of the Enterprize...and was forced to change and recast her as a nurse when the series got the go-ahead for the first season. And Paramount executives also were troubled that there was no mention of money and commerce as the series progressed. Rodenberry did not envision either in the distant future of Star Trek.

But, in a way, Paramount was truer to Rodenberry's vision than the shlock that appears in later Star Trek series...where a lot of the crap about religion, capitalism, and necessity of warfare got added back. In the original series, Paramount allowed Rodenberry a lot of leeway for social commentary that would not have been allowed on Earthbound TV shows of the 60's, regarding race and gender relations, and it's allegories for commenting on the Cold War and leaving a distinctive antiwar message any time they happened upon a savage planet where the natives were destroying themselves through constant warfare.

[August1991]

When I learned that French director Luc Besson had made a remake of "I Love Lucy" I was intrigued.

When I realized that Albertan writer Kimmy had made a remake of my film critiques, I was intrigued.

I was astonished to learn that she (nor anyone else in this thread) noted that Luc Besson made La Femme Nikita. I remember seeing that movie in the early 1990s (?) and thinking: 1) this guy is a shocking, one-hit wonder and 2) when Americans see this, they will love him like they loved Straw Dogs.

Woody Allen got the best of Scarlett Johansson, as an American waif. Otherwise, she's overrated.

Edited February 4, 2015 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

This is a Hollywood remake of Auguste's critique of Kim:

[OPEN ON A CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD]

A Confederate soldier is reading a letter from his fiance (Kim)... then an alien ship emerges from the sky and blows him away...

[2 HOURS OF A BUNCH OF EXPLOSIONS, UNSPECIFIC LOVE MAKING, EMOTIONAL SCENES]

Union Soldier: General Hardner.... Atlanta is burnin' !

[sOLDIER LOOKS OVER TO SEE GENERAL HARDNER MAKING OUT WITH SCARLETT JOHANSSON]

[CREDITS]

[Mighty AC]

Interesting I would at least watch it on Netflix, but isn't that the plot for Starship Troopers?

[guyser]

This is a Hollywood remake of Auguste's critique of Kim:

[OPEN ON A CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELD]

A Confederate soldier is reading a letter from his fiance (Kim)... then an alien ship emerges from the sky and blows him away...

[2 HOURS OF A BUNCH OF EXPLOSIONS, UNSPECIFIC LOVE MAKING, EMOTIONAL SCENES]

Union Soldier: General Hardner.... Atlanta is burnin' !

[sOLDIER LOOKS OVER TO SEE GENERAL HARDNER MAKING OUT WITH SCARLETT JOHANSSON]

[CREDITS]

By any chance do you have the time stamp for the naked bits of any women in this movie? I dont really wanna sit thru it all.

[sharkman]

Will Smith is the king of vanity films. For the love of all that is good, please stop trying to make Jaden happen. He's not going to happen.

Thank you for saying that.

I guess it's true, people(or at least this group) will argue about anything. Anything at all. The only thing I'm taking away from this thread is, I'm going to watch Lucy. I don't think it'll be as good as American Sniper, but what the hey, it's only Wednesday.

Edited February 4, 2015 by sharkman

[cybercoma]

Interesting I would at least watch it on Netflix, but isn't that the plot for Starship Troopers?

Oh no you didn't!

[overthere]

Will Smith is the king of vanity films. For the love of all that is good, please stop trying to make Jaden happen. He's not going to happen.

Eddie Murphy has a ten year lead.

[August1991]

The only thing I'm taking away from this thread is, I'm going to watch Lucy.

Do as you wish, then rent Besson's La Femme Nikita.

=====

BTW, Nikita to me is a male name: (eg. Nikita Kkrushchev). When I first heard Elton John's song, I assumed that he (or Taupin) were writing about a gay Russian. I recall being surprised to see a blonde marching in the music video. WTF?

Edited February 13, 2015 by August1991

[sharkman]

You know what? I loved that song, but not anymore thanks a lot! I kept feeling bad about Nikita having to look up through the wires, but now the magic is gone, how depressing. Hey, maybe you could work your magic on a song I hate. Give me your first impressions on Here Comes the Rain Again.

[kimmy]

The song was written for an English audience, not a Russian one. To an English speaking listener, Nikita *sounds* feminine, as we're used to hearing diminutive forms of words with an -a on the end. Novel - novella, senor - senorita, sharkman - sharkmella, this sort of thing. In non-English parts of the world, Andrea is a man's name and not a woman's.

Mostly I suspect that Taupin went with "Nikita" because it had 3 syllables, plus a grace and lyrical quality that "Ludmilla" simply did not.

-k

[overthere]

The only thing I'm taking away from this thread is, I'm going to watch Lucy.

Or, you could just set fire to a $20 bill and save yourself two hours of your life that you'll never get back.

[sharkman]

The song was written for an English audience, not a Russian one. To an English speaking listener, Nikita *sounds* feminine, as we're used to hearing diminutive forms of words with an -a on the end. Novel - novella, senor - senorita, sharkman - sharkmella, this sort of thing. In non-English parts of the world, Andrea is a man's name and not a woman's.

Mostly I suspect that Taupin went with "Nikita" because it had 3 syllables, plus a grace and lyrical quality that "Ludmilla" simply did not.

-k

I did not know that, kimma. Ugh, that doesn't quite work. The English speaking listeners also find putting a -y or -ie on the end kind of feminine I suppose.

Still hoping August does his particular treatment of the above mentioned song. Perhaps he's never heard of it?