For this week's "Ask Nathaniel" party, I asked people to be inspired by the theater (Tony season is upon us) or by the science fiction genre. I promised 10 questions. 10 answers but that's too long. So in Part One yesterday I answered four of them (topics: Avatar, Streep, Instant Classics, and Sci-Fi on stage - why haven't you commented?) and here are the remaining chosen questions that ended up organizing themselves around me missing Battlestar Galactica somehow.
LADYEDITH: If you could put any actress in charge of a Starship in a movie (doesn't have to be Star Trek) which actress would you choose?
the answer and 5 more questions after the jump...
LADYEDITH: If you could put any actress in charge of a Starship in a movie (doesn't have to be Star Trek) which actress would you choose?
The second I read this question my heart filled with the missing of Mary McDonnell's "President Laura Roslyn" on Battlestar Galactica. Not that she drove the spaceship but it's the association. I don't like Star Trek very much (in any iteration) so I'm glad I'm not stuck with that franchise in this scenario. For this task you need an actress with gravitas who doesn't look down on genre acting and the fantastical. So let some sci-fi spectacle be Angelina Jolie's vehicle back to film stardom ten years from now or so when she starts missing acting. If you're casting this kind of role also take a meeting with Essie Davis (post Babadook aren't we all eager to see what her range is like?).
And Sigourney Weaver is always welcome back in any sci-fi leadership role as per her invisible contract with audiences for the past 36 years.
So say we all.
SVG: Combining Stage and Sci-Fi- Any stageplays/musicals you'd like to see Prometheused on the big screen? Like an in-universe prequel eg Witches of Macbeth: Origins.
The word "origin" in titles sends me into padded cells it makes me so crazy. I HATE BACKSTORY. Where is the mystery? You need mystery for true engagement in a world, real or fictional. That said, your example is wonderful and I'd see that! Truth: secondary or peripheral characters or new characters are the only proper way / artistically sound way to do prequels. Anything else is just pandering for more dollars for your original concept, an excuse to get cheaper actors to play the roles, or to fill in the blanks and thus kill the mystery. For examples see the awful Star Wars trilogy from the Aughts or the very concept of Bates Motel (sorry fans, I just don't wanna know why Norman is the way he is... or what his mother was like... and the weakest part of the classic movie is the finale's attempt to explain the inexplicable psychology: Psycho gives us the only story points that matter and the things you can imagine about the history are at least half of why it's so fucking creepy!)
This question is really hard. I could only think of two. I'd see The Baroness! (inspired by The Sound of Music) because one senses in Eleanor Powell's great performance that she wasn't always an ice queen and the typical narrative is the thaw of the ice queen -- what a challenge to make the reverse into a compelling narrative. I would also pay top dollar for a time-travelling Misadventures of Audrey I (inspired by Little Shop of Horrors) played by Ellen Greene again as she revisiting all of her disastrous romantic relationships. This would be heaven mostly because Ellen's Audrey is one of the greatest characters ever written / performed. I'm seeing Greene sing her star-making role at a two night only event here in Manhattan later this summer and basically my heart races every time I remember that I have a ticket. We bought them the day they went on sale.
UPDATE: Just after typing this up yesterday, it was announced that JAKE GYLLENHAAL will be playing Seymour to her Audrey. And I already had tickets! This is the universe rewarding me for my lifelong Ellen Greene fandom. And it's a nice bandaid on a gaping heart wound this week: There is no way to get tickets to the one time only and won't be recorded "Bombshell" concert staring the original cast of SMASH cast since all tickets were sold during the pre-sale for backers of the show.
3RTFUL: Is an actor worth their weight if they refuse to do theater work after breaking through in film and television?
Not every actor belongs in every medium. There are only a few actually, like The Lovely Laura Linney, that seem equally adept in all three playgrounds. For example...
JS: What classic stage revival would you like to see Kate Winslet in so she can get her EGOT?
There are certain actors whose primal emotional power comes directly from their face in closeup. Julianne Moore is a great example: I was so excited to see her on Broadway but when I did she read flat and dull. But her face is a thing of perfection and has rare intimate power on the big screen. There's always so much happening even when nothing appears to be happening. I feel the same about Kate. I think always of tiny shifts in their eyes or around their mouths, or something seismic in a facial expression that shifts something directly in your soul and you can't get that on stage. The screen actors I always think of as 'ooh, they'd be good on stage!' are the ones where their voice / body seem to actively contribute to their particular magic.
VOLVAGIA: How many Emmy nods do you think the Netflix Daredevil show can manage?
0-3? It can probably be nominated for a few craft categories and is particularly deserving in those "only in your first year" categories like Outstanding Title Design and Outstanding Main Title Music. But will Netflix push hard? They have much bigger fish to fry with Orange is the New Black and House of Cards and what not. In fact, I suspect they'll push Bloodline harder than Daredevil with voters though I suppose Vincent D'Onofrio has a extreme longshot opportunity in Supporting Actor.
Why do I think big Emmys are out of reach? See the next question.
HEY: What is it about most science fiction films/performances that causes voters to flat out ignore their brilliance (technically and otherwise )?
I wish I could find the exact quote but Joss Whedon, in reference to Buffy the Vampire Slayer's pitiable annual awards showing, once said something like 'if I wanted to win Emmys I'd make a hospital or lawyer show' indicating that he truly gave no fucks. I'm not sure why it is other than genre bias that's always been there for "heightened" genres. Realism is often confused with Quality... as if it's silly to say something about the human condition through narrative filters like vampires or superheroes or the artifice of musical numbers. But it's not.
Sometimes when genre work is enormously popular it can escape this bias (like Game of Thrones) but not usually by enough of a margin to actually win "Best" prizes. Anyone who actively watched Battlestar Galactica when it was on, for example, surely understood that it was a more worthy and better acted show than any of the Emmy hogs during its run. Sometimes the filters of genre allow artists the distance they need to make really bold statements about the world as it actually is. This is why academics and critics tend to love genre movies, horror and sci-fi in particular; it's more fun to interpret them.
That was a lot of questions this week. Whew. Maybe I should just make Reader Question a daily series with only one question?
Do you agree that Daredevil will struggle in the Emmys and that not every actor should try and EGOT? Do you miss Buffy and BSG?