Monday
Oct232017
Kneel Before Your Queen
Monday, October 23, 2017 at 12:25PM Today’s #MondayMotivation. #ThorRagnarok #Helaween pic.twitter.com/VaRy8Sbuto
— Marvel Entertainment (@Marvel) October 23, 2017
I mean... technically she didn't need to ask. We've long since assumed the position.
Reader Comments (27)
I just wet myself! And I've been kneeling for a long time already.
On a less stalkerish note its good that Marvel know when they have an asset in their group and how to use them to their benefit. But a shame that some of the reviews mention Blanchett is underused.
ALL HAIL QUEEN CATE!!!!!!!
just can't wait!
I cant wait!!!!
Nathaniel, it took a while for you to warm up to her, as far as I remember.
I can't wait to see this movie!
ulrich - It was only a matter of time. I mean she's an Elegant, White Actress (TM). My next bet is he'll fall in love with Natalie Portman.
Not only this site but the critics in the US took a long time to warm up to her as well which I could never understand why during that era of Little Fish and Veronica Guerin. I've admired her craft from the beginning so when critics said her performance was reduced to a bad haircut and an accent, I kind of scratched my head. I think perhaps Meryl Streep was one of first 'famous' actresses to recognize Cate's talent having faithfully attended her early stage performances and wondering why no one took notice of her transformational prowess. But yes, I've been kneeling before this Queen for as long as I can recall since Elizabeth I.
@Jans
Are you serious?
In between Veronica Guerin (2003) and Little Fish (2005), she won the Supporting Actress Oscar for The Aviator (2004). There are worse eras to have.
Critics (US + UK) have always loved Blanchett. You can't paint her as some hard luck story that critics didn't truly "get" in the beginning. She was heralded as a potential heir to Streep literally from day one.
If there was an issue during the period you speak of, it's that Blanchett was usually part of or headlining failed oscarbait. The Rotten Tomatoes scores for some of her awards season hopeful movies at that time don't make pretty reading. Charlotte Gray (33%), The Shipping News (55% rotten), Veronica Guerin (53%), The Missing (58%).
In the early 2000's, Cate became synonymous with failed Oscarbait (aside from the Lord Of The Rings films, where her part was relatively minor). That was her problem. Not critics not appreciating her, because they always did, even through the flop films. She was predicted to be nominated and/or win an Oscar pretty much every season, till the films ended up disappointing. The second Blanchett ended up in a film that worked (The Aviator), critics helped push her to an oscar win.
Someone who has truly had to deal with adversity and undeserved critical disrespect at several periods of her career is Blanchett's Aussie compatriat, Nicole Kidman. Talent-wise, Kidman is every bit Blanchett's equal. And in terms of body of work, on film, I'd say she's Blanchett's superior. But over her entire career, critics have had been hot and cold with their appreciation of Kidman. There are a core of critics out there who've never really wavered in supporting her (hello, Guy Lodge), but the minute Kidman runs into a bad patch at the box office or poorly recieved films (or talk about botox or Tom Cruise), a lot of critics have used it as an opportunity to turn on her. Blanchett has mostly been spared that indignity over her career.
Kidman is going through one of those intermitttent periods in her career again, where most critics have decided they are in love with her as an actor again and she's up there with the Streeps and Blanchetts of the world. And it may actually last this time. But from past experience, she'd be right to worry about how long it will be before some of these critics use a bad movie or some other excuse to try and downgrade her again.
@Bret
Thanks for your insight. But what I was trying to convey was that some critics just didn't seem to 'get' her talent early on. If memory serves correctly, she was not given the lauding she so deserved especially in movies like Charlotte Grey, The Missing and Veronica Guerin (I think the NYTimes conveniently reduced her performance to some caricature in the latter). You're also right about Rotten Tomatoes and the failed Oscar bait. I remember SFGate (one of the few) praised her to the rafters in The Missing and predicted an Oscar nom but she didn't nab one in the end.
I feel sorry for Kidman as well. I reckon that she takes the most risks as an actress more than Blanchett and Streep and usually delivers despite the parochial trappings of some of her roles but they had been cruel to her for the last few years till BLL. At least now they recognize her talent and like you, I believe she's here to astound us with more great performances.
Most Kidman fans are smart enough to not compare her to Streep, Blanchett or Winslet, because she's just so unbelievably inferior to them.
I am always curious as to why we enjoy pitting women against each other? Why does this thread have to succumb to who we think has “more” talent? Do we do this with men?
I'm with you Jamie.
"Most Kidman fans are smart enough to not compare her to Streep, Blanchett or Winslet, because she's just so unbelievably inferior to them"
Uhhh....if you say so. Kidman fans don't have to do anything. Critics and Media are doing it for us. 2017 is probably a non-stop waking nightmare for Kidman detractors. All the thinkpieces calling Kidman the best actress of her generation or the most interesting actress working. Dominating the cultural conversation with nearly half a dozen TV and film projects. Queen Of Cannes. Reigning Emmy Champ in one of the toughest Best Actress fields ever.
The other actresses you mentioned all have fabulous careers, and deservedly so. But even they must all look at Kidman this year with astonishment and maybe a bit of envy, and wonder how on earth she pulled it off. After a year like this, KIdman is comparable to any actress who ever lived (ie Kate Hepburn, Bette Davis, isabelle Huppert etc) in terms of talent and actual achievement. So saying she can't be compared to 3 actresses that are essentially contemporaries in Hollywood is faintly ridiculous.
It says a lot when Jane Fonda, one of the most legendary actresses of all -time was recently with Kidman on the Graham Norton Show, and completely unprompted started saying that she "bows down" to Kidman and saying how amazingly talented she is.
Bret
She is definitely having a great year. However, I just screamed when you mentioned Hepburn, Davis & Kidman on the same sentence. Just, pull yourself together.
I first saw Blanchett in a small Australian film called Thank God He Met Lizzie. It was a fun film with a good cast: Blanchett, Frances O'Connor and Richard Roxburgh. Blanchett was already a luminous presence then. Then other films of hers appeared such as Oscar & Lucinda and even a small part in Paradise Road by Bruce Beresford (which featured a lot of actresses I no longer see in a film together: Blanchett, Glenn Close, Frances McDormand, Pauline Collins, Jennifer Ehle, Julianna Margulies, Johanna Ter Steege). Thought she was great in a super small role in The Talented Mr Ripley.
Then of course her successes came after these films and I still love to see films she's in. Every time someone wants to see a truly good actress in a film, my thoughts are like that famous line attributed to Marie Antoinette: let them meet Cate.
Not really a fan of her movies, her Oscars and her more lauded performances, but I'm really excited to see her in it.
ulrich -- i've been on board since Blue Jasmine but it doesn't mean i don't have a critical eye. I have that with everyone. I haven't reversed my position on earlier performances I didn't warm to. Sometimes I think Cate's technique gets in the way... which is the same complaint sometimes lodged at Meryl. You can be technically brilliant but still not pull off a character fully. I think Blanchett overdoes it sometimes, personally (see Notes on a Scandal/ Hanna/ Elizabeth 2). But she's just been killing it for the past few years.
beyaccount - i am not remotely ashamed of my love of actresses. I have been loving and praising actresses my whole life and fighting for them to be recognized for their contribution to the arts since I could write. (it makes me sick that people STILL don't list actresses -beyond Streep- with men when they're asked about "the greatest actors who ever livved". Sorry but there are plenty of women the calibre of a De Niro or Pacino) i'm not ever going to be ashamed of valuing the careers of great actresses. Also i was giving awards to Viola Davis before you even knew who she was (she won her first Gold Medal right here 15 whole years ago) so nice try with the shame-trolling :)
Bret & dg -- i've moved past being annoyed when people refuse to recognize Kidman's genius as an actor and now I'm firmly in the "it's so fascinating, psychologically, that some people just can't/won't see it despite so much evidence" camp
Since we're walking in circles, as always
I'll repeat the usual, as always:
Kidman is an extraordinary actress, but she's made an enormous pile of crappy movies.
Risk-taking alone doesn't make you a better actress.
Cate Blanchett has the best career of them all, she's peerless. She has:
*the critics,
*the Oscars,
*the directors,
*the theater
Streep doesn't have the theater, and she hasn't had the directors for quite some time now.
Kidman's often pointless risk-taking has already been addressed.
Tilda, where are you leading roles?
Kate Winslet returned to the spotlight superbly with "Steve Jobs" but everything else she's done since 2011 is either orange or red on Metacricitc. If she ends up with another lead nomination for Wonder Wheel this year, expect the backlash to start instantly.
By the way, 2017 is already under-performing in terms of quality. Both Victoria & Abdul and Wonder Wheel are not what people were hoping for.
@Yavor
Kidman has the theatre as well. Maybe not to the extent Blanchett does, but Kidman's 2 plays in the last 17 years have been huge events that have yielded her extraordinary acclaim.
In the West End, Kidman has been nominated for 2 Olivier Awards (Blanchett has no Olivier nominations, even though she's performed on the West End Stage more than Kidman) and was won two Evening Standard Theatre Awards (Blanchett is a nominee, but has never won). While Blanchett has the rep for being the theatreical animal, Kidman has gotten far more accolades that Blanchett on the British stage. Something Blanchett will probably try to rectify by debutng All About Eve on the West End next year.
Kidman is looking to transfer her last West End play, Photograph 51 to Broadway. With the reviews and awards she won, it'd be no great surprise if she claimed a Tony award before Blanchett. Blanchett may have more quanity, but Kidman's got an enviable track record on stage, considering she does it far less. My bet is that Kidman completes the Triple Crown of acting before Blanchett (Kidman already has the Emmy and Oscar. Blanchett oly has the Oscar).
I don't think Kidman's risk taking is pointless at all. It's why she's in the position she is in today, and critics and audiences are reassesing the value of her films and entire career. The risks are there to pay off in the long term.
Look at Birth. A critically panned movie (38% Rotten Tomatoes) that barely made any money. Yet many cinephiles today legitimately treat it as a masterpiece and vote it as her best performance.
http://www.indiewire.com/2014/03/why-ten-years-later-jonathan-glazers-birth-is-still-a-masterpiece-192930/
Kidman has created the kind of filmography where her many of her film and choices (like Birth or The Paperboy) demand a revisit or reappraisal, even if the initial critical appraisal wasn't favorable. If we are talking cinephiles, who are often the ones most passionate about film and promoting film legacies, I think Kidman is currently as easy pick over Blanchett from a cinephile's point of view. It may be why Cannes (the cinephile mecca) is inventing Anniversey awards to give to Kidman (the cinephile mecca), while the've never shown Blanchett that level of regard.
Blanchett defnitely has a great career, but one can make a very easy argument for Kidman's career being preferable.
Never noticed how few lead roles Tilda Swinton got till you pointed it out. A shame,as she's so talented.
Swinton was never a careerist as an actress. She doesn't even consider herself an actress. I never thought of her as a character actor nor a bit player. She can definitely anchor a movie with the best of them. But she's content with her freedom for not having to headline everything she does.
BTW, the Kidman theatrical curse is broken with me. My first three theatrical encounters with her have been horrible: Batman Forever, Dogville, Cold Mountain. And I don't give a damn how much you worship the Danish misogynist wielding a camera. But, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, was a rewarding theatrical encounter with a Kidman movie for me. So yay Kidman!
@ Bret
London's theater awards are not the benchmark for greatness.
Kidman has performed on Broadway once, 0 Tony nominations
Blanchett has performed on Broadway once, 1 Tony nomination
cumulatively Blanchett has the better career
there's many ifs and buts here
I love Kidman, saw her in Photograph 51 and really liked the performance but I can't say that's outstanding work deserving of a win (Evening Standard).
Many of Kidman's films exist in that grey area between mediocre and bad.
Birth has aged wonderfully. The rest of the critically panned movies haven't.
@Yavor
I disagree and agree with some of what you are saying. Laurence Olivier is widely regarded as the greatest stage actor of the 20th Century (if not all time). He only has one Tony nomination and no wins. His reputation is't built around American theatre awards. The British stage by itself, has always had as much currency as Broadway, and still has. So many current or former British stage actors are automatically regarded as the best, without anyone knowing if they have had any Tony success at all on Broadway (Anthony Hopkins for example, one of the all time great British stage actors, has never won a Tony, despite performing on Broadway).
If you are great on the British stage, then you have as much theatre credibility as any succesful or Tony stamped Broadway performer. There's a reason Blanchett has performed on the West End far more than she has on Broadway. For many stage actors, around the world making it in the West End is equally satisfying to making it on Broadway.
I do think Blanchett has the better stage career than Kidman, but not because of one measely Tony nomination that she only picked up this year, arguably due to name recongnition (her play, The Present did not get great reviews, and she was never a real threat to win the Tony). Blanchett has the greater stage career because of her productivity and strong reviews in many more productions than Kidman has been in, including those in Australia, the West End or Off-Broadway. Blanchett does more theatre and does it at a high level. KIdman does theatre at a high level, but does it less, so Blanchett gets the nod for being more active.
I'd give Blanchett''s stage career the nod over Kidman's without the Tony nomination, so it's not that black and white an argument. Blanchett's ecstatic reviews for her off-Broadway stage performance of A Streetcar Named Desire are a far greater evidence of her greatness as a theatre actor than one token Tony nomination.
I just think that Kidman's stage career is sort of incredible in it''s own right, considering she barely does it, but has hit it out of the park on every occassion she's done it. it's just interesting for me that Blanchett lives and breathes stage, yet Kidman, who doesn't run theatre companies in her spare time like Blanchett, just sort of decides to do theatre randomly whenever she feels like it, and also turns out to be a world class stage actress. It's not as easy as it looks for Kidman to do that, when you consider some amazing film actresses like Jessica Chastain and Julianne Moore bombed with critics on their Broadway debuts, and haven't been back on stage since.
Also, Kidman now has TV. I have no doubt Blanchett could do a TV movie or mini-series and potentially win an Emmy. But it's no longer a given, with the intense competition in that category from world class actresses.
cant we say they both have amazing careers that are the envy of many? I bet they regard each others work highly.
@ Bret, I'd like to disagree
Blanchett, I think, cares very very very much about New York. It's just that she likes to do things on her own terms (hence her great career); she brought not just Streetcar, but also Uncle Vanya and The Maids to New York. All of them off-Broadway.
I used the Tony Awards to challenge your Kidman London Greatness mentality.
Sure, Kidman's been in London twice and received two nominations
but she's also been on Broadway once, and received 0 nominations
While Blanchett did receive a nod for her Broadway debut
What you're saying about Kidman in London can be used against you, basically.
You very quickly became defensive by attempting to diminish Blanchett's Broadway success, and here's where we enter the ifs and buts I was referring to.
As I said, I love Kidman, but I did watch her Paragraph 51 performance, and without having to rely on theater critics about something that I've seen in person (I also did fringe theater in London in 2014 and 2015), I don't think her performance is worthy of an Evening Standard win.
I rest my case.
Camptastic!
Thank you for sharing such valuable information and knowledge. This can be great and helpful insights for us. I would love to see more updates from you in the future.
London Cortney