Log in

No account? Create an account
If it flops, do they get rich? - The Fucking Bluebird of Goddamn Happiness [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

If it flops, do they get rich? [Aug. 15th, 2005|12:35 pm]
[Current Mood |cynicalcynical]

Let me make this clear, right up front. I like Uma Thurman. I loved her in Kill Bill, and in Pulp fiction, and in any number of other roles. I think she is an interesting actress, with striking looks.

But there are certain roles that are right for a person, and certain roles that aren't. And the role of Ulla, the curvacious Swedish bombshell in The Producers is NOT right for a stick-thin, gaunt-and-harried-looking woman.

I thought it was a poor casting choice when I first heard it announced (bringing to my lips words I NEVER thought I would say: "Yeesh, they should have stuck with Nicole Kidman"). And my opinion was confirmed by the publicity photo in Entertainment Weekly in which she looks less like a blond bombshell and more like a guy in drag. (Nothing wrong with guys in drag, mind you, but the show already has a place for them - and it ain't here.)

I'm not sure why the producers of...um...The Producers thought they needed to go with a "name" for the part - Lane and Broderick were onboard, and they are the selling ticket for the show. The Ulla role really requires a blonde version of Catherine Zeta-Jones, and I'm willing to bet that somewhere out there in Hollywood there was an unknown waiting to break into the big time who would have fit the role perfectly. But instead, in this day of Chicken Little box office receipts ("the sky is falling!"), Hollywood seems to be bent on sticking to "safe" choices - even when they are really, really bad ones. Remake old TV shows instead of looking for fresh scripts. Cast someone who sold well last year, nevermind what the project was about. Don't take risks.

And this, my friends, is why they fail.

[User Picture]From: rollick
2005-08-15 04:46 pm (UTC)
Wow. She really does look like a drag king in that photo.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sandman74
2005-08-15 04:48 pm (UTC)
"Uma Thurman joins the party as buxom blonde Ulla."

When I think buxom...somehow, Uma never seems to make the list. It's crazy...almost like she would not make the cut or something.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-08-15 04:58 pm (UTC)
Well, that having no boobs to speak of thing generally would take her out of the running. But she's s good actress. Maybe she just acts like she has boobs.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: xforge
2005-08-15 05:04 pm (UTC)
Nathan Lane staring down a pair of barely-B's in a laughable attempt at a pushup bra. Yeah, that's gonna go over like a concrete dirigible.

At least Uma can act. She'll be able to pull off that much of the role, if not the fact she needs to put on about 25 pounds to be convincing at it.

Yup, it'd have to be a new unknown, 'cuz I know of no one that could convincingly be a "blonde Catherine Zeta-Jones," which by the way is a great way of putting it. Well, Kim Basinger maybe could have but she's aging, however gracefully, and might not be convincing because of that.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-08-15 05:18 pm (UTC)
And that's their publicity photo. REALLY scary thought.

Kim's too old now. And unknowns are Good Things. That's how you build your stable of available players.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: happydog
2005-08-15 05:37 pm (UTC)
And this, my friends, is why they fail.

That, and insisting on bankrolling movies like Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: suzieboz
2005-08-15 05:46 pm (UTC)
This time I disagree with you; after seeing Lane and Broderick in the Broadway version of the Producers, I think she's perfect for it.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: veryloud
2005-08-15 05:50 pm (UTC)
Scarlett Johanssen. Totally.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-08-15 05:52 pm (UTC)
Hmm, sez I. Coulda worked.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: crystalrowan
2005-08-15 06:04 pm (UTC)
That completely and utterly sucks. Can she even sing? God, I hope so. Because if they put her in there because of her looks (which are totally wrong), that will totally suck.

I'm still looking forward to it because I'm a Nathan Lane junkie and I LOVED the play. But Uma Thurman? Come on....
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: apostate_96
2005-08-15 07:50 pm (UTC)
Agreed. It's also why some of those indie, made-for-a-pittance films do so well and are so well-liked. They haven't forgotten that what really hooks people is a good story and actors who can really play the characters well rather than just the names in the credits. That's why my favorite Ben Affleck (yes, I actually LIKE something he did) flick is Chasing Amy, rather than one of the bigger-budget, flashier films. He had a character there I could identify with and relate to....and a director who wasn't afraid to pull a good performance out of him.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: yndy
2005-08-15 07:59 pm (UTC)
Okay... Uma as "Venus" in Baron Munchausen? yeah... curvaceous and bombshell...

Uma today? not so much.

They couldn't find an actress who didn't look like a heroine addict to play the role? Hell, eating-disorder-poster-child Renee Zellwegger who looked positively skeletal in Chicago managed to look healthy/normal/curvaceous in Bridget Jones... they couldn't go with someone willing to put on *weight* for the role?

When did "voluptious" come to mean 15-20 lbs under</i?weight in Hollywood? Gah.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-08-16 12:33 am (UTC)
It's sad to me, actually, how much Hollywood seems to be moving toward a single body type - scrawny - being the only acceptable one. When you can't find a voluptuous woman to play a voluptuous role, something is radically wrong.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: kellirose1313
2005-08-15 11:47 pm (UTC)
I've been saying since I found out about her a couple months ago that she's very wrong for it. She's too skinny. Ula is supposed to be vivacious and curvy, neither of which Uma is.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: fortuna_juvat
2005-08-16 12:14 am (UTC)
Completely off topic, but I found out that the boy vacuumed the house as a way to say he was sorry over a spat.

It really *is* the little stuff that keeps a couple happy. Wise, wise woman are you.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-08-16 12:23 am (UTC)
It is indeed.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: libco
2005-08-17 04:54 am (UTC)
My BF's comment was "Uma? She doesn't even have tits. She looks a one of those wafer models" (he once misunderstood waif and likes wafer better now)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2005-08-17 09:40 am (UTC)
Wafer actually does make decent sense!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: tormentedartist
2005-08-18 01:21 pm (UTC)
Yep you are totally right. I'm not attracted to skinny girls for he most part but I thought Uma was sexy in Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. But in the Producers ? No....Anna Nicole Smith wouold have been perfect back in the 90's. Lookwise, I doubt she could act.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: unamundamour
2005-08-20 10:28 pm (UTC)
I looked at that picture in EW this week and thought: What's up with that? The actress who originated the role on Broadway and won a friggin' TONY wasn't available?

I remember Uma looking busty at an awards show years ago, but I think she was still nursing baby #2. Ethan was with her.
(Reply) (Thread)