I wish Nicole Kidman hadn't done that stupid Kevin Hart/Bryan Cranston movie. Maybe she needed to buy a new house or something. This movie, or the idea of this movie, annoyed me when it was in its French iteration (an iteration I didn't see). It annoys me now, in its American iteration (which I don't want to see and probably will see).
Let me explain. First, I can anticipate lapses in taste from Bryan Cranston. Mr. Cranston's post-"Breaking Bad" career has had more misfires than exciting moments, and so I don't expect all that much from him in the decision-making realm. And heaven knows I expect nothing from Kevin Hart. This man's work has never shown evidence of talent or even, really, a sense of humor, and I don't anticipate changes. (That said, I think the national response to Mr. Hart's dumb Tweets and dumb, homophobic, old standup has been overblown. It brings to mind the term: "witch hunt.")
But Nicole Kidman? Ms. Kidman has shown real signs of fearlessness. "Birth," "To Die For," "Fur," "The Paperboy," "The Hours," "Rabbit Hole," "Stoker": These are bizarre roles in bizarre movies. They are roles many others would have passed over. Ms. Kidman has a sharp eye. Yes, she has had her share of "Stepford Wives" and "Bewitched" disasters, but I'd bet her boring-choice-to-exciting-choice ratio is quite a bit more passable than Mr. Cranston's ratio.
So why is she appearing in this Hart/Cranston nonsense?
Also, Hart/Cranston/Kidman: Only one of these actors has an Oscar. That same actor has many, many more Oscar nominations than her costars. So why is she given third billing? Why has she taken a job that seems to require only that she look uptight in the midst of Mr. Hart's shenanigans (say, every fourth or sixth scene)?
Another thing I am already prepared to despise about this movie: I hate any movie that decides to be "heartwarming" before hitting first base. All subsequent artistic decisions grow out of that initial decision to be "heartwarming" (or, "bankable"). This strikes me as one of the most cynical moves imaginable, and it seems disrespectful to actual people who may be in Mr. Cranston's character's actual situation. These people were not put on the planet to make you feel slightly warm and gooey and self-congratulatory around Christmas time.
The Hart/Cranston movie--which seems in the tradition of "The Soloist" or "Collateral Beauty"--brings to mind a favorite passage of mine. It's a passage from a Lorrie Moore story. In this passage, Moore is writing about the possibly terminal illness her son has. She is sitting--enraged, untouchable--in a pediatric cancer ward when another parent passes by and makes a sympathetic noise. "All of this is hard," says the parent, to Moore, "but there is a great deal of collateral beauty along the way."
And Moore entertains thoughts of murdering this parent. She can't find words to produce a response to this parent's tastelessness.
That's the kind of story I want to read. A story that tells the truth--and, in doing so, is paradoxically more comforting than a great heaping hunk of shlock.
Kidman remains enchanting and strange at this advanced stage in her career. Someone wrote about her in "Big Little Lies." He said, "Many actors score points by emoting, by being volcanic. Kidman does something different. She is spellbinding precisely because she tends *not* to emote. You sense a great deal happening just under the surface. The suspense--will she let go? will she erupt? when?--is the thing that keeps you watching."
I recalled those lines when I saw "Boy Erased": another case where Kidman makes a feast of a not-brilliant movie. Kidman gets just a few big moments, and they're nothing stunning on the page; the script could be the work of a well-trained robot. But Kidman does her job. She shows us a real, actual person at war with herself; she also gives us a persuasive, quiet display of heroism. Not everyone can do that.
So: Ms. Kidman. Please stop with the Kevin Hart stuff. Have more respect for yourself. Do you need an additional house? Maybe the need isn't as strong as it seems. My two cents. And, dear reader, please do all you can to skip this Cranston/Hart/Kidman movie.
Let me explain. First, I can anticipate lapses in taste from Bryan Cranston. Mr. Cranston's post-"Breaking Bad" career has had more misfires than exciting moments, and so I don't expect all that much from him in the decision-making realm. And heaven knows I expect nothing from Kevin Hart. This man's work has never shown evidence of talent or even, really, a sense of humor, and I don't anticipate changes. (That said, I think the national response to Mr. Hart's dumb Tweets and dumb, homophobic, old standup has been overblown. It brings to mind the term: "witch hunt.")
But Nicole Kidman? Ms. Kidman has shown real signs of fearlessness. "Birth," "To Die For," "Fur," "The Paperboy," "The Hours," "Rabbit Hole," "Stoker": These are bizarre roles in bizarre movies. They are roles many others would have passed over. Ms. Kidman has a sharp eye. Yes, she has had her share of "Stepford Wives" and "Bewitched" disasters, but I'd bet her boring-choice-to-exciting-choice ratio is quite a bit more passable than Mr. Cranston's ratio.
So why is she appearing in this Hart/Cranston nonsense?
Also, Hart/Cranston/Kidman: Only one of these actors has an Oscar. That same actor has many, many more Oscar nominations than her costars. So why is she given third billing? Why has she taken a job that seems to require only that she look uptight in the midst of Mr. Hart's shenanigans (say, every fourth or sixth scene)?
Another thing I am already prepared to despise about this movie: I hate any movie that decides to be "heartwarming" before hitting first base. All subsequent artistic decisions grow out of that initial decision to be "heartwarming" (or, "bankable"). This strikes me as one of the most cynical moves imaginable, and it seems disrespectful to actual people who may be in Mr. Cranston's character's actual situation. These people were not put on the planet to make you feel slightly warm and gooey and self-congratulatory around Christmas time.
The Hart/Cranston movie--which seems in the tradition of "The Soloist" or "Collateral Beauty"--brings to mind a favorite passage of mine. It's a passage from a Lorrie Moore story. In this passage, Moore is writing about the possibly terminal illness her son has. She is sitting--enraged, untouchable--in a pediatric cancer ward when another parent passes by and makes a sympathetic noise. "All of this is hard," says the parent, to Moore, "but there is a great deal of collateral beauty along the way."
And Moore entertains thoughts of murdering this parent. She can't find words to produce a response to this parent's tastelessness.
That's the kind of story I want to read. A story that tells the truth--and, in doing so, is paradoxically more comforting than a great heaping hunk of shlock.
Kidman remains enchanting and strange at this advanced stage in her career. Someone wrote about her in "Big Little Lies." He said, "Many actors score points by emoting, by being volcanic. Kidman does something different. She is spellbinding precisely because she tends *not* to emote. You sense a great deal happening just under the surface. The suspense--will she let go? will she erupt? when?--is the thing that keeps you watching."
I recalled those lines when I saw "Boy Erased": another case where Kidman makes a feast of a not-brilliant movie. Kidman gets just a few big moments, and they're nothing stunning on the page; the script could be the work of a well-trained robot. But Kidman does her job. She shows us a real, actual person at war with herself; she also gives us a persuasive, quiet display of heroism. Not everyone can do that.
So: Ms. Kidman. Please stop with the Kevin Hart stuff. Have more respect for yourself. Do you need an additional house? Maybe the need isn't as strong as it seems. My two cents. And, dear reader, please do all you can to skip this Cranston/Hart/Kidman movie.
Comments
Post a Comment