Bored at work? Frustrated with people who aren't returning your calls? It's time to contemplate the greatness of Michelle Pfeiffer.
-Ms. Pfeiffer has been called a character actress in a movie star's body. In other words, she is stunningly beautiful but also she is an idiosyncratic and surprising performer. My husband wondered if Ms. Pfeiffer's dazzling beauty has actually kept her from being taken as seriously as we might wish; I doubt this. Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence, and Natalie Portman are all glamorous and lovely people who also have Academy Awards.
-I do think that Ms. Pfeiffer made some questionable choices at the peak of her career. She was wanted--ardently--for "Thelma and Louise." She said no. People wanted her for "Silence of the Lambs"--but the material was, in her view, "too dark." Just imagine what could have been!
-During her hiatus from acting, Ms. Pfeiffer painted. Yes! She made paintings. She couldn't stop herself.
-Routinely, Ms. Pfeiffer is called the one bright spot in lackluster movies. She is often cited for "adding class to the joint." I'm thinking of the bizarre "Stardust," along with "Dark Shadows" and "The Family." One of the most upsetting developments in recent history was having Pfeiffer appear in the almost unbearably boring summer film "Ant-Man and the Wasp." Pfeiffer was given maybe four lines, and then she was swallowed by a black hole (or something like this). I took a nap. Pfeiffer appeared, once again, at the very end, to express her thanks to the bland Paul Rudd, and then the movie ended. (I guess Paul Rudd had saved MP from the black hole?) What is wrong with this country? Why do we give big chunks of air time to Mr. Rudd, and not to Ms. Pfeiffer? This almost ruined my summer.
-Michelle Pfeiffer seemed to go after an Oscar with "Cheri"--and this may have looked like a smart move, given the director's earlier collaborations with Anjelica Huston and Glenn Close. But no one liked "Cheri." People were much kinder to Pfeiffer's other big costume dramas: "The Age of Innocence" and "Dangerous Liaisons."
-A distressing moment in Pfeiffer's career: She takes on the role of Ruth Madoff in a not-well-received HBO movie. Sarah Jessica Parker interviews Pfeiffer. Weirdly inarticulate, Parker struggles to say, basically, this: "Ruth must have known what was going on." And--shockingly--Pfeiffer shuts Parker down. Pfeiffer says: "Ruth has repeatedly denied knowing anything, and I believe her." This seems oddly facile to me. Really? Ruth was in no way attuned--even in a subconscious way--to her husband's awfulness? I guess I understand that, if you're an actor, you want to "advocate" for your character in every possible way. But wouldn't it be more interesting, in this case, to explore Ruth's possible duplicitousness? And to try to work your way into that mindset--to *understand* that possible duplicitousness? This is the sort of thought that fills my time.
-Toni Morrison has a book out. It looks dull and humorless, and its ponderous title is: "The Source of Self-Regard." Somewhere in the book, Morrison states that she "can't talk about lipstick when there's a plague in the land." I think the implication is: Trivial matters do not deserve our attention. Well, I disagree. I'd rather read a Nora Ephron essay on Teflon than Morrison's thoughts on the "plague in our land." Call me trivial! I write, today, in the spirit of Nora Ephron. Little things matter. May fond memories of Michelle Pfeiffer's early- and mid-career work guide you through your day.
-Ms. Pfeiffer has been called a character actress in a movie star's body. In other words, she is stunningly beautiful but also she is an idiosyncratic and surprising performer. My husband wondered if Ms. Pfeiffer's dazzling beauty has actually kept her from being taken as seriously as we might wish; I doubt this. Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence, and Natalie Portman are all glamorous and lovely people who also have Academy Awards.
-I do think that Ms. Pfeiffer made some questionable choices at the peak of her career. She was wanted--ardently--for "Thelma and Louise." She said no. People wanted her for "Silence of the Lambs"--but the material was, in her view, "too dark." Just imagine what could have been!
-During her hiatus from acting, Ms. Pfeiffer painted. Yes! She made paintings. She couldn't stop herself.
-Routinely, Ms. Pfeiffer is called the one bright spot in lackluster movies. She is often cited for "adding class to the joint." I'm thinking of the bizarre "Stardust," along with "Dark Shadows" and "The Family." One of the most upsetting developments in recent history was having Pfeiffer appear in the almost unbearably boring summer film "Ant-Man and the Wasp." Pfeiffer was given maybe four lines, and then she was swallowed by a black hole (or something like this). I took a nap. Pfeiffer appeared, once again, at the very end, to express her thanks to the bland Paul Rudd, and then the movie ended. (I guess Paul Rudd had saved MP from the black hole?) What is wrong with this country? Why do we give big chunks of air time to Mr. Rudd, and not to Ms. Pfeiffer? This almost ruined my summer.
-Michelle Pfeiffer seemed to go after an Oscar with "Cheri"--and this may have looked like a smart move, given the director's earlier collaborations with Anjelica Huston and Glenn Close. But no one liked "Cheri." People were much kinder to Pfeiffer's other big costume dramas: "The Age of Innocence" and "Dangerous Liaisons."
-A distressing moment in Pfeiffer's career: She takes on the role of Ruth Madoff in a not-well-received HBO movie. Sarah Jessica Parker interviews Pfeiffer. Weirdly inarticulate, Parker struggles to say, basically, this: "Ruth must have known what was going on." And--shockingly--Pfeiffer shuts Parker down. Pfeiffer says: "Ruth has repeatedly denied knowing anything, and I believe her." This seems oddly facile to me. Really? Ruth was in no way attuned--even in a subconscious way--to her husband's awfulness? I guess I understand that, if you're an actor, you want to "advocate" for your character in every possible way. But wouldn't it be more interesting, in this case, to explore Ruth's possible duplicitousness? And to try to work your way into that mindset--to *understand* that possible duplicitousness? This is the sort of thought that fills my time.
-Toni Morrison has a book out. It looks dull and humorless, and its ponderous title is: "The Source of Self-Regard." Somewhere in the book, Morrison states that she "can't talk about lipstick when there's a plague in the land." I think the implication is: Trivial matters do not deserve our attention. Well, I disagree. I'd rather read a Nora Ephron essay on Teflon than Morrison's thoughts on the "plague in our land." Call me trivial! I write, today, in the spirit of Nora Ephron. Little things matter. May fond memories of Michelle Pfeiffer's early- and mid-career work guide you through your day.
Comments
Post a Comment