Posted by Elaine on March 18, 1998 at 18:29:32:
In Reply to: Madeleine Stowe & Other Stuff posted by Marcia on March 18, 1998 at 15:00:58:
This thread reminds me of the Ancient Turtle in the Swamp of Despair (Never Ending Story). Much better to hear the voices of opposition than the apathy of "We don't even care if we don't care"!!!!
So, thanks for the opinions. Glad to see Neuromancer back, Rebecca get well ;I agree with Rich and Elaine, too! :)
Maddy, Wes, careers, success, nudity, etc.................
Regarding MS' career; the point of that Musing was to question why, after having had the opportunity to showcase her talent as a capable actress in LOTM, would Madeleine Stowe decline the privilege of choosing better roles? The poor quality of films prior to LOTM is one thing, but after? Her role as Cora was her ace in hand and she basically, in my opinion, flushed that ace in the toilet. To go from one of the best films and best roles ever to come out of Hollywood DIRECTLY to the likes of "Unlawful Entry" is mind boggling. Whether or not one likes that film, it most certainly wasn't a high quality production. Not the stuff to build a career on. And what roles has she gone on to accept? A couple were okay, at best, most were downright ridiculous. "Bad Girls"??????
What we're saying is following LOTM, Madeleine Stowe was at the crossroads of her career. That was the time to make her mark, be selective, and break out of B movies. She didn't, and she may never again have such an opportunity. Mediocre, sex-laced, poorly written films may be her lot for the rest of her career. That's not the fault of producers, writers, agents, make-up crews, or BenBen. It's Madeleine's own choice. She's far from the starving starlet who needs to accept anything she can get. She's wealthy, she's known. She certainly can afford to be choosy. Apparently, she hasn't cared to. If you think we're being too harsh, check out her latest *flick*!
Also, I don't think the issue is how many films an actor makes an appearance in, but the quality of those films. DDL has certainly rejected an awful lot of roles.
As for nudity; I can think of very few situations in which it actually enhances, or at least is justifiable in film. There are, of course, the
historic cultural depictions such as "The Mission", "Shaka Zulu", or "Zulu Dawn", or films depicting atrocities and assaults on human dignity; "Schindler's List", "The Killing Fields", etc........... but we are, I think being bombarded with films with gratuitous nudity and sexual situations that really are never "necessary". It's so commonplace that a film without such elements is eye-catching (LOTM for example). Sometimes I wonder if Hollywood hasn't come to view the public as participants of a collective voyeurism???? I don't get too excited about nudity in film, but I can't say I think it's an enhancement, more of a detraction. I've always thought films that only hinted at sexual situations were far more effective than the 1-2-3 strip of most films today.
I agree with Madeleine Stowe's comments as we quoted in the Musing, but I don't know if SHE agrees with them!
Wes Studi; his career has definitely been on the rise. Even if some post-LOTM roles were not earth shattering, he's been getting varied parts. He's not typecast as an Indian actor. He's building a well deserved reputation as a very, very good actor. And he's producing films as well.
In any event, we wanted to say that we would never expect everyone to agree with our opinions (MARCIA!!!). We do like the feedback, whatever the viewpoint. And for what it's worth, we do think out our Musings and other additions before we put them up.
Ah! A productive day in Mohicanland!
Post a Followup