The Hot Blog

Honestly, I don't give a shit about this Judy Garland biopic. You already mentioned La Vie en Rose. I saw that movie a while back ago. While it was good, it was predictable. This Garland biopic will be predictable, too. Same sad story, a rise to fame and popularity, rags to riches tale.

I'm tired of Hollywood making movies about self-destructive celebrities. I don't give a shit if Hathaway will be good, creepy, or crappy as Garland.

But she's probably desperate for an Oscar win.

Sorry DP, but Hathaway is not an icon yet, but this is the kind of role that could turn her into one. But without a script or director yet, it remains to be seen what promise this project may or may not have.

Mommie Dearest II.

This is, I swear, a true story: When I interviewed Liza Minnelli a few years back, she told me about an interview she'd had a week earlier with a very young network radio reporter. At several points in their conversation, Liza made passing references to "my mother." Finally, the reporter asked: "Who's your mother? Is she in show business, too?"

This may or may not turn out to be a great biopic. But I can't help wondering how many people under, say, 25 have any idea who Judy Garland was. Seriously. Even if they saw The Wizard of Oz when they were kids.

well Joe, as someone under 30...

Yes, Judy Garland isn't as big as a film icon as many baby-boomers see her.

I've seen Wizard of Oz, I've seen parts of "A Star is Born". That's honestly about it. I didn't know Judy Garland was Lisa Minellie's mother until I was in college. swears.

I bet Bill Condon gets an offer. Wonder if Scorsese would be interested?

Garland's life was interesting enough that even a by-the-numbers approach might make for a decent film, but I really hope they get someone who'll take a more original approach. The built-in audience for the story isn't going to be huge anyway, so why not do it in a way that gets people talking?

I know who Garland is but I didn't know she was Liza's mother either.

I'm more and more convinced that Anne Hathaway can do anything.

Anne Hathaway: Best Working Actor, Male or Female, In American Film.

Rob, Lex, are you insane? Alternate question: have you seen Hathaway in ANYTHING besides Rachel Getting Married, in which she was admittedly terrific and gave me hope that she might actually be a decent career actor. She was OK in Brokeback, certainly. But can we take a look at her other achievements so far?

The Princess Diaries movies: Not as painful as they would be with Hilary Duff, but nor is she as wonderful as, say, Amy Adams was in her own Disney dreck.

In Becoming Jane, she gives a strangely cold, technical, teacher's-pet sort of performance.

The Devil Wears Prada, being horribly overrated, gives her nothing to work with -- but she brings very little to the role, either, except a sort of vague everywoman-who-happens-to-also-be-gorgeous quality. So basically, something any working actress could probably pull off.

In Get Smart, she displays absolutely no comic timing or zest or anything remotely resembling a take on the character. Her take is pretty much just: "First Agent 99 rolls her eyes and is disgusted with Max, then later she likes him." Granted, some actors get laughs by playing to the reality of the situation and not playing for laughs, but Hathaway doesn't do that, either. It's a completely humorless, by-the-book performance, and I was shocked to read reviews that praised her comic agility in that otherwise halfway amusing movie. MAYBE you could say she's a good sport. She certainly was when she hosted SNL, and on the Oscars, so I'm not saying she's devoid of talent. In fact, given the five nominees this year, I would've voted for her for the Oscar. But all of this praise because she's appeared in mediocre comedies *and* mediocre dramas *and* can sing... it's kind of nuts. What about her resume makes you think she can do "anything"?! (Unless Lex was being sarcastic, in which case: good show.)

Uh, Joaquin Phoenix played Johnny Cash, less than two years after his death and about three after his return to major cultural prominence. I would argue Cash had as much visual and aural significance to the public at large as Judy Garland does. And while the success of Phoenix's performance can be debated, I think he's an excellent precedent.

Also yeah obviously I'm disputing the idea Hathaway is already an icon.

Jesse:

Yes, I have seen her in more than RGM. Though that performance on its own would be enough to put her in league with the GREATS of either gender in any era. It is a Pacino-in-Dog Day level performance.

I would also direct you to HAVOC; Yes, the only hype it got was for her nudity and for how she was seeking to change up her goody-goody rep. But she is as raw and honest and brutal and AWESOME as Brando, DeNiro, Penn and Rourke in that movie. It's exploitive and unpleasant as a movie, but her work in it was a revelation.

And I think you're underselling her in Brokeback; From the charming rodeo gal in her first scene with Gylenhaal to that painful phone conversation with Ledger, she manages to convey a world of dashed hopes and disappointment. It was great work.

I thought she was delightful in Get Smart, as well as STUNNINGLY beautiful. You literally cannot take your eyes off her in that.

Winner: Hathaway.

Greatest Working Actor.

To be 'Greatest Working Actor' you need to have more than one good performance. Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon also had two Godfathers, Serpico, and Panic in Needle Park under his belt, aka 'a body of work'.

Brokeback was good work hampered by her insistence on playing 'old' which just felt affected. And she was better on SNL than she was in Get Smart (I nodded off).

Hathaway is either a scumbag crook or a scumbag informer. Either way the bitch is rotten.

LexG gets looks and acting confused. If she looked like Mare Winningham, you'd never hear boo from him about her. Her 'PERF' in RGM was terribly mannered and melodramatic tv movie artifice.

But you can't jerk off to ugly actors!

I have to admit, I thought Hathaway was fucking hysterical on the Oscars this year - and could sing, so I think this would be grand. And as someone who went to the hopelessly sold-out Hollywood Bowl recreation Rufus Wainwright did of Garland's show there of many moons ago, I think there's still enough about her that will get people interested.

But yeah, Judy Davis already hit this one out of the park.

sjr ---- my faveorite review of the rufus concert:
http://backstage.blogs.com/blogstage/2007/09/a-froggy-gay.html

and, you're right....they shouldn't even try to best the judy davis version...

"It is a Pacino-in-Dog Day level performance."

I'll just pretend I didn't read that!

I think she's has on-screen charisma and vulnerability but I can't see her at that level yet.

and I am so tired of biopics. Yecch.

The Davis/Blanchard Garland biopic is truly unsurpassable, one of the finest biopics I've ever seen (even if it was made for television). So why even bother?
Never understood the "La Vie En Rose" love. Sure, Cotillard is fine, but the movie--turgid, overlong, dripping with groan-inducing
biopic cliches--is really, really terrible.

anne freakin' hathaway is an icon? since when?

This story broke in the Brit press at the weekend. Read all the way through and you'll find the real reasons why she wants the part.

Does the average American know Garland from anything other than Oz? How were the ratings on the Davis TV pic?

I think the trick with this new film will be keeping the budget in check. Walk the Line cost only 28 mil, but Garland's story will require big production numbers, as well as recreations of Hollywood glamour a la The Aviator. So its cost could easily match Walk the Line's domestic gross.

I'm sure it can be promoted into a hit, especially if it actually turns out well, but it seems like a risky prospect. I think Hathaway is good casting though. To pick up on what Burma Shave said, I certainly never expected to buy Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, but he was great in spite of having no real physical resemblance to Cash. Frankly, dead-on mimicry can be a problem -- Oscar or no, I didn't care for Cate Blanchett's Katharine Hepburn at all.

Is there someplace that I said that Hathaway is an icon? I don't see it. Garland, yes.

'Judy Davis went there in 2001, for TV, to great acclaim. But again, not an icon (though I am a huge Judy Davis fan) playing the icon.'

dp, i took that paragraph to mean davis was great as garland on tv, but that davis is not 'an icon [hathaway]...playing the icon' [garland].' apologies if i misunderstood.

Judy Davis - somebody give this amazing Aussie actress something to do PRONTO - won the Emmy, Globe and SAG for playing Judy. In case people weren't aware.

I can definitely see Hathaway in this role, but she needs a strong director. Somebody up there mentioned Scorsese... well, I actually think he'd be perfect. I'd be confident in him making it more than just a mere history of judy garland type of situation.

Here's hoping they don't copy La vie en rose's infuriating cut and paste editing. Christ, that movie was terrible.

I still think that they should be making a Liza biopic and cast Toni Collette. Seriously.

...and now I'm listening to Liza's brilliant 1989 PSB-produced album Results.

one of my most prized possesions is the boxed set of all of the cbs-tv 'judy garland shows'...she was so fucked-up, musical director mel torme wrote a great book about the experience...
the shows are electric...at times great, at times a disaster....
read the book, watch the vids....it's a much more interesting story than the m-g-m stuff.....

i actually bonded with liza during our interview for 'stepping out' and ended up going to vegas as her guest....sweet!

I didn't think La Vie en Rose was terrible, but I am still mystified by its all-over-the-place editing and story structure.

One of my most treasured post-screening dialogues was after La Vie en Rose. As I was leaving the cinema I got to chatting to this lovely old lady who was seated a few rows in front of me. She clearly saw the perplexed look on my face and asked "you didn't like it too much did you, son?" and I replied with a laugh "no. no i didn't. what about you?" and she replied "it was worse than than movie where judi dench and cate blanchett screamed at each other for two hours while wearing bad mascara."

So i guess something good did come out of that movie after all.

That part in Husbands and Wives where Sydney Pollack has to drag a shrieking, scene-creating Judy Davis out of wherever is *awesome.*

My post La Vie en Rose convo went something like, "Little long, uh? Too bad they won't give her the Oscar, I seriously doubt we'll see anything match her the rest of the year." Then we passed the one sheet for I think it was some Lady Chatterly movie and then commented about how asinine that movie looked from the trailer.

I think I'd rather see a movie about Liza than her mom, but then I don't really know her mom's story, just a small amount of her work.

Has the scope of Hollywood, particularly media coverage, teh internets, aud sophistication, outlets for publicists, et cetera, spelled the end to the Hollywood starlet and by so doing all but eliminated the possibility of a credible subject of a biopic down the line? 40 years from now, will there be intrigue over who'll play Julia Roberts or Scarlet Jo or Cameron Diaz? Will people be so fascinated by Drew Barrymore's life a couple of generations from now? I can almost imagine a more sympathetic view of her being generated years from now than what would take place now. Would Jody Foster be the role all women would clamor for considering her life's work and personal history but her 3D personal seems to be somewhat sedate? Joan Crawford, by comparison, and others as presented in the golden era, had these bigger than life personas that were as worthy of celluloid as any of their on-camera work.

"Judy Davis - somebody give this amazing Aussie actress something to do PRONTO - won the Emmy, Globe and SAG for playing Judy. In case people weren't aware."

I grieve more for the forgotten (and by most people, never even known) greatness of THIS Judy than the other one. Christ, I miss that woman.

A supporting role in a Debra Messing dramedy on the USA Network (the hip and happening home of "PSYCH" notwithstanding) IS NOT THE SAME.

Hallick, that sly dig was AMAZING.

But you're so right. She was great in a little Aussie movie recently called Swimming Upstream with Geoffrey Rush and the Aussie guy from House. Movie wasn't all that, but Judy was a fireball exploding through it.

Triple, the moment they make a Madonna biopic is the day somebody signs themselves an Oscar. However, I think a lot of people who have had biopics made about them were only deemed worthy once they had in fact died and we started to learn more about them.

But, furthermore, today's life isn't exactly going to come off as all that exciting in 20-30 years, surely. It's not like the '40s or '50s in that regard.

But, never fear, Hollywood producers will indeed find people to make biopics about. There are plenty of egomaniacs, secretive drug abusers, closet cases and geniuses hidden away to keep the Academy salivating for decades to come.

Judy Davis would've made a great Evita. Even Patti LuPone thinks so.

Judy Davis in High Tide = Extraordinary

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: