January 25th, 2004

Filed under:
Movies
5 Comments »

Winning Oscars the Poor, White Trash Way

Today I watched Monster, the account of Aileen Carol Wuornos, a prostitute-turned-murderer and her love affair with a woman named Selby. It’s serious, predictable and despairing in a Boys Don’t Cry sort of way. With the exception of Charlize Theron’s remarkable transformation into Wuornos, it’s a pretty unremarkable true-crime story.

Theron is at the heart of my concerns about the film. Because she’s a big name actor, and because of all of the media attention around her metamorphosis (compare this with this), the film seemed as much to be about Charlize Theron as it was about Wuornos. Her performance was unquestionably over the top, and so the film seemed like a real ego trip for the performer. I would have sympathized more with the protagonist–a difficult person to like–had she not been played by your standard Hollywood ingenue. This was, in part, what made Boys Don’t Cry a grittier and more compelling film–Hilary Swank was a relative unknown. Of course, her performance was far more natural as well.

Regardless, Theron’s a shoe-in for the Best Actress Oscar. Poor white trash roles win for women as often as the sick and the psychotic win for men. Consider these recent wins:

2001 74th Academy Awards
Halle Berry - MONSTER’S BALL (uh, technically poor black trash, I suppose)

2000 73rd Academy Awards
Julia Roberts - ERIN BROCKOVICH

1999 72nd Academy Awards
Hilary Swank - BOYS DON’T CRY

If an actress wants to guarantee an Oscar next year, she should play a poor, busty, African-American, cross-dressing lesbian.

Comments: 5 Responses so far

becky
January 26th, 2004
12:01 pm

Hilarious, Darren. You know Charlize won the Golden Globe last night. Somehow I doubt Saskatoon will be showing Monster in its theaters.

[Reply]

Jack
January 28th, 2004
6:30 pm

Hi, I found your blog via Alan’s (oyvavoy) and I thought I would comment on what you said about Monster. I think it is absurd to dismiss a film just because a Hollywood big wig is starring in it. It would be like expecting Kill Bill to be a bust because Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, and Vivica Fox are in it. I thought the The Last Samurai was pretty well done even though it starred Tom Cruise (not my favorite and white-man-saves-world could be edited).

And of course playing an individual from a disadvantaged minority group (homeless, prostitutes, gay, lesbian, disabled, etc) is much more difficult than playing someone who is rich and famous or “average.” Hollywood celebrities are rich and famous themselves, how difficult would it be to play someone who is affluent on screen? I mean it’d be like asking Paris Hilton to play a rich person on screen…that’s her reality show not acting in a movie. Who wants to see average Joes on film? I can’t imagine going to a movie and watching Ian McKellan play your average white grandpa *yawn*

Erin Brockovich: Julia Roberts did not deserve that oscar…that film was just tits with lots of screaming.

The Hours: Nicole Kidman didn’t play white trash and she won her Oscar deservingly.

Charlize T was “over the top” without a doubt, but you fail to recognize that is what her character is all about. What did you expect from a serial killer with a vengeance? Her character suffers from megalomaniac toward the end of the movie and I am sure in real life Aileen Wuornos did too. She believed she was indestructable. How can you fault an actor for being “over the top” when the character is psychotic and violent?

I watched Monster with a person who grew up in the South (of USA) and knew the area where the film was set. He thought Charlize nailed the accent and mannerism DEAD ON.

Jack

[Reply]

Darren
January 28th, 2004
8:47 pm

My point, as I stated it, was that the media attention around the film made it difficult for me to accept Theron as Aileen Carol Wuornos. I didn’t particularly sympathize with the character–a problem, as you always want the audience to sympathize with the protagonist. If they don’t care about her (and I didn’t), then why are they watching the film?

Furthermore, given that Theron has an executive producer credit on the film, it suggests that she’s been emotionally invested in the project for a long time. This was apparent in the film–she didn’t seem to have much perspective on her performance.

Another example is Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise in ‘Eyes Wide Shut’. Because they were a highly-popularized couple during the making of this sexually-charged film, it was difficult to separate their personas from those of the characters.

There’s no evidence in the film that the character believes that she’s indestructable. If she did, why would she flee in terror from the scene of the car accident in the old peoples’ front yard? Surely someone confident in her freedom wouldn’t have been so panicked.

It’s interesting that you bring up serial killers. More often than not, actors choose to portray serial killers as calm, focused individuals whose psychotic nature becomes apparent in small ways. This is a far more subtle approach than Ms. Theron’s broad, screechy out-Heroding of Herod.

If Charlize Theron wins the Oscar, I think we can agree that I’ve got a sound theory: in recent times, playing a poor character (better yet if she’s gay or black) is likelier to win an actress an Academy Award.

[Reply]

bigcanadiano
February 1st, 2004
3:27 pm

Boys_don’t_cry? I thought the movie Monster in terms of genre compares better a long the line of “Psycho” and “Jaws.” Which, makes this attempt less than a real life account… but more into a *thriller* as though reality. Overall the movie is a poorly adapted and malicious attempt of movie making, good to provoke a response.

[Reply]

Isa
February 21st, 2004
1:35 am

Monster: Is not a true story, I saw in 20/20 that Aileen Carol Wuornos killed only innosent men that never raped her.

[Reply]

Add a comment