February
12
Jolie Rates on Forbes List
The most remarkable thing about the top-ranked players in the Forbes Star Currency list (which measures power, money and fame) is that Angelina Jolie competes head-on with Johnny Depp, her partner Brad Pitt, and Will Smith. It helps that she nabbed an Oscar nom for Changeling. But she's ranked so high because of Wanted. She nabbed $15 million to anchor that movie, because she's an action star, the first ever to compete on a level playing field with her male peers. The studios will even give Jolie a role written for a man: she replaced Tom Cruise in Phil Noyce's upcoming studio thriller Edwin A. Salt.
There was a time when movie audiences would not accept a woman with a gun. James Cameron's kick-ass heroines Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton were understood to be fighting to save the world--and protect children. Somehow, from Tomb Raider to going mano a mano with Pitt in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Jolie has been able to push the limits for women in action.
There is a downside to Jolie's action stardom, though, just as there is with Cruise. She's bigger than life. She's a huge celebrity. She's distracting.
Cruise and Jolie can be formidable in big movie star vehicles. Jolie was the only actor in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow who could comfortably inhabit that stylized fake universe. But what happens when she plays a real character in A Mighty Heart, Changeling or The Good Shepherd? No matter how skillfully she performs, she's still Angelina Jolie.
Big movie stars are a distraction, especially when they are asked to be authentic real people, based on true stories, in naturalistic dramas. Cruise never quite disappeared into his role as heroic Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg in Valkyrie. In theory the movie could have been made with a less well-known actor (who could have done the German accent), for less money and potentially more profit. (But Cruise was able to get it made.)
Meanwhile, Cruise is trying to claw his way back into commercial contention with The Tourist, Bharat Nalluri's remake of the 2005 French thriller Anthony Zimmer, co-starring Charlize Theron, for Spyglass, and he's also in talks to star opposite Denzel Washington in David Cronenberg's film adaptation of the Robert Ludlum novel The Matarese Circle, for MGM (not UA). This should be well-tailored to the Cruise persona.
There's little question that audiences want to see stars like Jolie and Cruise in movie star mode. And for the moment, both seem inclined to give them what they want.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
I enjoyed her in "WANTED" and saw the movie only because of her. I'm glad that because of her, more action roles will be given to women... I just hope it's not a "trend."
Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley were two of my childhood heros when I was growing up. F--k yeah!
Posted by: UGLY DEAF MUSLIM PUNK GURL! | February 12, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Yet another respect in which East trumps West!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9Ywz1lrOQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dW0wWhDxhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-u58fHER5g
Posted by: David C | February 12, 2009 at 02:29 PM
Why is Angelina the only actress singled out for failed Drama movie. Out of all the nominated best actress, her movie grossed the most. Cate Blanchett and Kate Winslet has never even carried a movie yet I don't see anybody talking about that.
Posted by: Hope | February 12, 2009 at 04:40 PM
Don't all actors do better when they do action, comedies and all that popcorn movies then when they do dramas? I wonder if their problem is also because they are "huge celebritie"? Lol
Jolie is no exception.
Her dramas did very well if you compared them with other movies coming out in the same year.
"The Good Shephered", Jolie is only for about 25 minutes in it, made about $100 million WW and about $35 million in DVD sales.
"A Mighty Heart" made $18,934,571 WW and $23.31 million in DVD sales, but it had a small budget (about $15 million).
If you compare it to Rendition, a film that open in the fall and had a budget of about $30 million and had Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Meryl Streep, Peter Sarsgaard (AMH only had Jolie has a known actor to the general public) and only made $26,608,984 WW and $26.90 million in DVD sales.
Changeling an "R" rated movie it hasn't open in all makets and is close to 100 millions WW and it hasn't come out in DVD yet. If you make some comparison with other dramas with a female in the lead you will see that it is doing very well.
And both Changeling and a "A Mighty Heart" gave Jolie nominations for the top awards, including an Oscar.
I think you need to go and take a look at Cate Blachet, Reese Witherspoon, Kate Wislet and other actress box office numbers before you speak of Jolie's.
Posted by: Redbull38 | February 12, 2009 at 04:51 PM
Yeah, but what's the fun if you can't knock Angelina Jolie? She's not like the rest... she doesn't have a publicist. Variety is always kissing Pitt's butt. Tell the truth. brad pitt can't act. His acting is stagnate. he has been acting for the last 20 +years and yet he has not GROWN as an actor. Angelina has potential to be even better if she sticks without. She needs better movies to showcase her talent. I hope she doesn't really quit.
As for Pitt? The movies he's in are always better than his acting. He's the most overrated Actor. He belongs in Rom-coms.
Posted by: Movie Star fan | February 12, 2009 at 06:45 PM
According the the screenwriter of Valkyrie, Chris Mcquarrie (sp?), it was his/Singer's decision not to use German accents. Cruise wanted to use the accent.
Posted by: trevoir | February 12, 2009 at 06:53 PM
Oops I'm half asleep . I meant if she sticks WITH it, not without it. As well as not having a publicist she also doesn't have an Agent. Pitt does and that's probably why all of these sites kiss his butt so much. I watchdc his Curious case of Forest Button and I said wth is so good about this terrible bland acting? He did the same acting in other movies like Troy which made a lot of money overseas but it was HORRIBLE and cheesy. He looks constipated when he's in serious scenes.
*rant over* time for bed.
Posted by: Movie Star fan | February 12, 2009 at 06:56 PM
I'm sick of seing stories like this about Jolie. The problem YOU have is unique to critics, wannabe critics and certain cinephiles who think they're experts. I can guarantee you the public doesn't think along these lines. The public looks at a trailer and says, "Oh look, Angelina Jolie's in a movie about child abduction/kidnapping/a period drama...that looks too heavy. Think I'll wait for the dvd." We don't sit there and go, "I can't buy Angelina Jolie as anything outher than Lara Croft or a kick ass spy."
You theory and supposition is ridiculous on face value because otherwise you're at a loss to explain actors like, George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet don't have box office hits. Even Johnny Depp for that matter. His Pirates movies are successful, but name another Depp movie the public's flocked to see?
More than anything it's the subject matter of Jolie's dramatic turns that prevent people from seeing the movies in theaters. It's not because we have trouble suspending belief and only seeing Jolie the person without letting her disappear into the role. Critics such as yourself clearly spend too much time reading tabloids or whatever it is that gives you the impression that you KNOW Jolie and therefore prevents you from allowing yourself to let go of YOUR preconceived notions. Stop tarring the rest of us with the same brush.
As for Tom Cruise? That's another story entirely. The man simply cannot act and the couch jumping which made him "larger than life" simply magnifies for people what they've felt all along - Cruise is never really acting, he's just reciting lines and hoping people don't notice that each subsequent line is delivered exactly the same as the one before it.
Posted by: The Problem Is Yours Not Jolie's | February 12, 2009 at 07:27 PM
One last comment - I find it rather hinky that your post should appear today, the same day the excerpts from Variety editor Peter Bart's new Vanity Fair article became public. In the article he calls Jolie "shrill and controlling" in interviews. Now you're attacking her for being such a big celebrity she can't disappear into her acting roles. What is this - attack Jolie day so those undecided Oscar voters don't vote for her? Sheesh. The Variety agenda is a wee bit too obvious. Give it a rest already.
Posted by: The Problem Is Yours Not Jolie's | February 12, 2009 at 07:30 PM
I personally love to see all of Jolie's movies - she's mesmerizing on screen and real life. She's larger than life and a living legend. She's a wonderful actress and I truly hope her desire to eventually fade does not come about soon because HW will lose one of its true MOVIE STAR.
Posted by: opinionated | February 12, 2009 at 09:34 PM
No Variety agenda. And I celebrate Jolie's power here.
Posted by: anne Thompson | February 12, 2009 at 09:35 PM
Sure Peter Bart has many friends at CAA and Stephan Huvane's big office.
Stephan is shrill and controlling media.
"Don't write what you know! My client Jennifer Aniston or Anne Hathaway never smoke. Jennifer had never got plastic surgery. She just got a regular surgery at the plastic surgeon."
He is the best!
Posted by: lala | February 12, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Peter may overlooked this report from a Pilitzer journalist.
Brooks Barnes headlined “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image,”
Fast-forward to the Times of Dec. 7, which found the Gray Lady’s public editor Clark Hoyt eviscerating the piece. After consulting with official sources –among them People managing editor Larry Hackett and the contract itself, neither of which Barnes got access to — Hoyt heard abject denials of the piece’s claims and found no reference in the pact to any kind of editorial sweetheart deal.
Barnes, it turns out, relied on an unnamed third party for his “scoop.”
Then Hoyt put the hammer down: “I think that unless one of (Barnes’) sources is willing to come forward — on the record — and state firsthand knowledge (of the allegations), the paper needs to correct the impression of a deal it cannot prove.”
Barnes’ continued defense of the piece, said Hoyt, “leaves the Times relying on anonymous sources to dispute on-the-record sources, a questionable position over a story of less than world-shaking import.”
Posted by: lala | February 12, 2009 at 10:14 PM
people really need to chill out.
Posted by: UGLY DEAF MUSLIM PUNK GURL! | February 13, 2009 at 07:46 AM
Peter Bart is something. He has issues with angelina, he called her a homewrecker,the woman who broke Brad pitt golden marriage, controlling, manipulative etc,.. He acts like the editor of Star magazine not Variety. If he gets fired he will do just fine at the National Enquirer. Trust me you won't read a "bad or negative" piece about Pitt on Variety.
Posted by: Katty | February 13, 2009 at 01:30 PM
These fools in the peanut gallery mistake a little knowledge for a dangerous weapon. It was Clint Eastwood who said Jolie was a great actress hampered by beauty. So why paint her up all doll-like to within an inch of her life? Don't say it was the era and woman never left the house without their face paint on.
Posted by: T. Holly | February 13, 2009 at 03:35 PM
I agree, As a movie goer, I was very very aware of the actress rather than the character, for both a mighty heart and the Changeling. Definitely on point.
Posted by: Is | February 23, 2009 at 06:48 PM
well,regarding actors who become hugely successful--some just stop acting,remember cruise the outsiders ,losin' it ,or risky business-there was vulnerability in those and he still hadn't started using all his physically jerly body movements. he was emotionally touching in born on the forth of july and interesting in eyes wide shut-but many actors-think morgan freeman-typecast now as the narrating,slowly talking,wise old man-decide to show up,hit the mark and say the line. the camera,lighting,etc. do the acting for them- for those who want acting watch remains of the day, dog day afternoon, the king of comedy,cassavete's films.
Posted by: HiC | July 25, 2009 at 10:09 PM
a wonderful posting (above) , I agree
Posted by: Baddboyfilms | May 11, 2010 at 02:28 AM
Oh I'm confussed now, I was just reading in Variety Magazine which stated in a news article : Paris Hilton wanted to be Jo Lie I meant Jolie sounds like (Yo_lee) Yo Lee! Yo, Daddy!
Daddy's Talk-Shop is located at engine room 90 above the garbage dumping grounds. is that the trailer trash yard on this side of the street behind the furniture rental restaurant rental moving & storage place where all the RATS and Illegal Mexicans Hide from the INS and Law??
Posted by: Baddboyfilms | May 11, 2010 at 02:42 AM
Woodley Ave. Trailerpark Trashy Mexicans raid the thinn parking lot and live homeless inside those 1940s old navy trailer dumpsters across Fire Station 90 there on woodley ave. in Mission Hills, is it? I know what you (Comment above) refers to. That place is correct. You are right. That actually was a Burial side place for the trailer owners who originally owned those trailers that is why they do not want to re-sell that place. The Fire Department which is across the street from there on woodley ave. they know about the buried dead bodies riddled inside that property on woodley ave. cross street of Blythe St. but the city is in denial of what to do if no one knows that was an old cemetery graves count in the numbers of over 2,500 buried 8 feet under that dirt then what do you do? they moved the plot stones in 1954. The property is actually illegal. The city doesn't want to admit it used to be a cemetery and now is the Woodley Ave. at Blythe St. Van Nuys, Ca. 91406 location of the trailer-park built in 1955 and the Graves left under it as the trailer-park owners just took the headstones off and threw them into the trash. I am a ex-navy seal officer , I Volunteer for the V.A. on Balboa Blvd. twice per week. I am 92 years of age.
Posted by: Gorden C Y III | May 11, 2010 at 02:55 AM
Thanks for sharring importent information in this blog.
It was very nice.
http://www.bestoffrm.com
Posted by: ercan | June 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM