You Wrote Reese A Letter?

Okay, spill. What did it say? What was so important that you just had to write it down. Tell us in the comments*.

*I had hoped to do big posts today but prep for my vacation is killing me. so I'm playing blog comment games instead.

IMDb Top 20 Actress List. A Few Late Notes.

Have any of you read this IMDb list which purports to evaluate the "overall importance and impact" of film actresses across the span of the past two decades. That'd be 1990-2009 (though obviously they're including 2010.) I had somehow missed this list which arrived in September I think but I can't let it go by without some comment. I'm not sure what they mean by "impact" exactly... global fame? If so, Angelina is too low. And "importance" is another highly subjective word. The list is as follows.

[I've added the "peak periods" after their names to attempt to show when they were most "important/impactful" or, rather,  "when people cared about them the most" in film.]

1. Julia Roberts  .............[1990-2001]
2. Meryl Streep ..............[1990, 1995, 2002-now]
3. Cate Blanchett ...........[1998-2008]
4. Kate Winslet  .............[1994-2008]
5. Jodie Foster   .............[1990-1997]
6. Nicole Kidman  .........[1995, 2001-2005]
7. Sandra Bullock  .........[1994-2000, 2009-now]
8. Halle Berry  ...............[1991-1992, 1998-2002]
9. Emma Thompson   ....[1991-1995]
10. Angelina Jolie   .........[1999-now]
11. Julianne Moore   .......[1998-2004, 2008-now]
12. Susan Sarandon   ......[1990-1995]
13. Helen Mirren   ..........[2001, 2006-now]
14. Gwyneth Paltrow  .....[1995-2002]
15. Hilary Swank   ..........[1999,2004]
16. Cameron Diaz   .........[1994-2005]
17. Renée Zellweger  ......[1996-2004]
18. Meg Ryan   ...............[1990-2000]
19. Jennifer Aniston   .....[2006-now]
20. Judi Dench   .............[1997-2001, 2005-2006]

I've never attempted to remove my own opinion for an objective list... objective lists are best done by committee. But I did notice that most of the objections to my own personal "Best of the Aughts list" (which only counted 2000-2004 as it was made in 2005) were based on the overall fame and consensus acclaim of the snubees combined with the willful refusal to see that it was a subjectively judged "best/favorite" opinion piece.

But even if you are trying to be objective with "impact/importance" there will be disagreements.

 <--- Nathaniel's #1 "Actress of the Aughts"... if you include the 1990s though, her rank would drop quite precipitously.

For example, I can't figure how Jennifer Aniston ranks at all since they're talking about a decade in Cinema. If you include TV, she is absolutely deserving of a top 20 spot given global fame and tv iconography. But even her romantic comedy features aren't the classics or blockbusters that the other romantic comedy women on the list (Julia + Sandra + Cameron + Meg) have achieved -- usually more than once, too. So I think they're confusing "fame" which she certainly has a lot of with "importance to cinema".

I also think Swank shouldn't rank. She's an active figure for only half of the time frame PLUS her only claim to fame is two roles when all is said and done. Sure those were Oscar winners but that's it. Is there any other modern actor who has managed so much credit for body from such a tiny tissue sample? Because the rest of her resume.. nobody cares. I don't think that's just a personal opinion influencing my observation. Consider that I'm not the biggest cheerleader for Renée Zellweger either but I absolutely agree that she deserves a top 20 spot on a list of this type covering this timeframe. I'd believe that about Aniston too, given her longevity, if anyone could point to any film that was a big deal, either critically or box office wise that she was intrinsic too. Maybe The Break-Up (2006) but isn't that the only possible argument? It's not like people paid for Bruce Almighty to see her.

Also: Gwyneth Paltrow. Similar situation in a way to Jennifer Aniston... i.e. unquestionably one of the biggest celebrities, but one of the biggest actresses? Unless "overall importance and impact" means "size of celebrity" in which case, the list would need serious reworking.

Most surprising (but deserved) inclusion: Meg Ryan. She's the only person who made the list who hasn't been capturing public attention recently and not generally treated positively. I'm proud of the editors for their objectivity there. See, you can usually tell when a list is made by what the rankings are; they always follow current perception meaning that however people are feeling about someone right then matters far more than whatever they felt about them over the course of whatever time frame they're judging. Take Helen Mirren for a prime example. She is very very very busy right now and has sustained the hysteria over The Queen (2006) surprisingly well -- good for her and her team -- so she makes the list but in actuality she has one of those filmographies/ careers where people flit in and out of interest in her quite easily. When she's out of sight, isn't she out of mind?

Missing from the list: I think the most obvious snub is Reese Witherspoon who was working for all of those 20 years and earned a couple of classics, a few self-sold blockbusters and an Oscar as reward.

Your turn. Do you think the editors made the right choices? Or are you mad that they snubbed Uma? Penélope or any other international divas? Oscar-regular Frances? 90s biggies like Michelle, Joan, Winona, Holly, Angela or Demi? Anjelica? Charlize? Laura or Laura? perpetual classic Diane? kooky Helena? bitch-goddess Annette? avant-garde Tilda? Keira or Scarlett? Or maybe Natalie Portman who has been famous for *gasp* 16 years now and still isn't 30.

Unsung Heroes - The Students of "Election"

This is Michael C. from Serious Film  back again to shine a light on a cinematic achievement that has been hidden for too long in the shadows. This week it is a film I've been an evangelist for since it's release over a decade ago: Alexander Payne's Election (1999). Pick Flick!

Is there any setting more misrepresented in movies than high school? Courtrooms, maybe, or hospitals with their staffs four times bigger than anywhere you could actually find. But at least these places use reality as a jumping off point. The majority of movie high schools, with their student bodies straight from central casting and their campuses the size of Ivy League universities, appear to have been fabricated completely to fit the needs of Hollywood producers.

When a movie like Alexander Payne's Election (1999) finally comes along, which rings true in detail after detail, one wonders what they did differently. The success of Payne's film is undoubtedly in large part due to his decision to shoot in a real high school while classes were in session, and to use the actual students of Papillion La Vista High School generously throughout the film. It may seem like a minor decision, but it adds a crucial air of credibility to the movie.

For one thing, they look real high students. It may seem like an obvious point, but it actually makes Election quite a rare specimen. Most movie students look like they're pushing thirty, and dress as if they are on their way to a commercial shoot for Axe body spray. Acting ability aside, the mere act of going through wardrobe and make-up adds a layer of polish that audiences register. In Election, even the more dramatic moments of the story -- Tammy's speech, Mr. McAllister's sabotage --feel less like scripted plot points because the unaffected presence of real students subliminally signals to the viewer that nothing phony is happening.

That realism must also have rubbed off on Broderick and Witherspoon who both deliver performances that stand as career high points. According to the DVD commentary, Payne frequently sent in real students to improvise with his stars. Knowing that their performances were going to be so readily judged against the genuine article must have worked as a safeguard against putting in too many actorly touches. It is especially impressive that Election manages the feat of meshing Witherspoon believably into the mass of ordinary teens, considering she is as glamorous a star as we've got, and Tracy Flick as a role is full of invitations to go over-the-top.

On top of all these benefits, some of the kids are just plain good. Lots of moments that stand out in my memory from Election are the little bits of documentary realism from the students. The kids who ramble through their explanations of morals vs. ethics set the stage perfectly for Tracy and her "Ooh, ooh, call on me!" routine. I also love the boy who delivers that strange cackling heckle when Tammy takes the microphone and the girl who lets loose with a few dance moves when the crowd is chanting Tammy's name. And the kid who ad-libs reasons to Broderick why he needs to retake a test has a naturalism that a lot of pros could learn from.

It's telling that for all its arch filmmaking touches, Election feels more authentic than just about any other high school movies one could name.
*

The Master Is Dead! Long Live The Master

.

JA from MNPP here. In case you missed the news, it seems that Paul Thomas Anderson's next film The Master - which was to star Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the leader of a new Scientology-like religion in the 50s with Jeremy Renner as his disciple and Reese Witherspoon as his wife - has turned into a pillar of salt and gone poof. It's E-meter done gone and flat-lined. I'm sure it supposedly being a thinly-veiled critique of a religion intertwined with a large portion of the Hollywood establishment had nothing whatsoever to putting a pox on PTA's house, I am sure. Sure. Why not.

Anyway this is depressing news for those of us that worship upon the altar of Paul Thomas Anderson. I promised him my first born and all I get are empty promises! It's enough to make you not believe in a higher directing power after all. My faith in movie-making is shaken! I am having a crisis of cinematic conscience! To quote a well-known philosopher renowned for his wise words and his hammer pants, what we need to do is pray. But who does one aim this sort of prayer towards? Christian God is too busy editing all the boobs out of movies to get them down to PG-13. Muhammad doesn't show his face at the cinema. And unless you're willing to sing and dance it Bollywood-style Buddha doesn't take movie requests. Who is the god of movies? Is it Morgan Freeman too?

..Can you hear me, Morgan Freeman? It's me, JA.
.

In all seriousness, if this movie is indeed dead as a dead dormouse, what should PTA turn his attentions to next? Something to get the tweens with their sexting and such on-board could definitely raise his stock I think. Maybe a Love Story 2010 with Zac Efron and his girlfriend. I know, he could remake Boogie Nights and have Katherine Heigl play Amber Waves! It's genius. Fifty million dollar opening weekend in the bag!
.