hollywood Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Being an actress can be a real pain in the ass. By definition, the gig is simple. You pretend your someone else; you perform. In reality, however, there's a whole added can of worms -- especially when Hollywood is involved. There's this ridiculous and particular mold an actress has to fit into, and pitfalls she must deal with -- especially in terms of superstardom.

There is literally no way to completely avoid the possible pitfalls of celebrity -- especially if you choose to be involved with any film project. We live in a world where potential blockbusters can tank and the $11k, uber-small Paranormal Activity can become a phenomenon. There's always a chance -- the possibility of being thrust into the ever-scrutinizing public eye, finding any semblance of privacy fly out the window as the paparazzi camp out at your front door and fandom rains down.

Welcome to the Dollhouse.

Are you finding it increasingly harder to take the changing physicality of Hollywood actors?

Things change; they grow old, they morph, and sometimes even evolve. It's a fact of life, and usually a good fact of life. But lately, I find myself constantly having to try and ignore certain physical aspects to enjoy a trailer, an image, a film. Rather than absorbing the project, the mood, the plot, I'm trying to blur my eyes so Mr. or Ms. So-and-So doesn't look quite so silly.

On the one hand, of course, it's the plastic surgery. Practically everyone in Tinseltown does something. There's no way everyone has smooth foreheads and bright skin. But when the random nose job or improvement turns into new cheeks, chin, or balloonish lips until the original person is nowhere to be seen, it becomes too much. If this was happening to actors known for morphing into characters, whose performance shines much brighter than their own image or personality, fine. But when the stars whose name and faces are their fame, you can't ignore it. I simply cannot see Mickey Rourke without thinking back to The Pope of Greenwich Village, spot Meg Ryan without trying to recognize the girl from Innerspace, Melanie Griffith, Sylvester Stallone, Nicole Kidman... Can they really think that's better than a few wrinkles and some sagging skin?

I have this problem. I have really sensitive triggers to the '90s. Dazed and Confused. Cameron Crowe. Sheryl Lee. Grunge music. Pirate DJs and Christian Slater. Kevin Smith. Plaid. Hackers.

Get started on one train of thought and in no time, many parts of that decade flash through my mind. When I see that perfectly coiffed teen movie, I think back to Empire Records, Dazed, Pump Up the Volume, and the other films that didn't look like fashion ads. Movies about relationships lead me back to the days of Singles and Chasing Amy. And the music. Oh, the music. Sure, there was bubble-gum mainstream fare, but there was also so much that was fresh and unexplored.

One of the main reasons that I adore the '90s is because many of the films were just a little different, a little less polished, and all the better for it. I could never relate to Angelina Jolie's Kate Libby (I, for one, never had the urge to buy a boyfriend a pleather bikini for example.), but I could relate to the idea of her. I didn't want to start my own pirate radio station, but I loved Hard Harry's monologues and how his musical tastes threw another nail in the coffin of my pop-loving past.

A lot has changed in the last decade. In the late '90s, Toronto was a hopping, up-and-coming film town, with the city doubling as just about every New York landmark. Mega Mayor Mel Lastman led the charge, and was so pro-movies that you could even catch his face on the big screen before some films started rolling. (A startling inclusion, I assure you.) Then 9/11, SARS, and the strengthened Canadian dollar, and productions started staying stateside.

But now The Hollywood Reporter has posted that Toronto's current Mayor, David Miller, has been touring studios in Los Angeles, attempting to woo them back to the northern city. His pieces of woo: a promise to charge 78 cents for every Canadian dollar spent on city services, the new Filmport studios, and the fact that the Canadian dollar is back down to 80 cents. "Toronto has a good reputation in the U.S. We're safe, we're well organized. Our unions are true partners, and a number of producers have had positive experiences in the city," he said.

In these times, I imagine money would be enough of an incentive, although studios will also have to deal with disgruntled US workers. Then again, as long as the film is good, will audiences care? I mean, we've forgiven a lot over the years in order to indulge in solid entertainment, so I can't see this being a problem.

But only time will tell if more will be added to the cinematic list that includes: American Psycho, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, X-Men, Police Academy, Mean Girls, Adventures in Babysitting... What's your favorite Toronto-shot film?

When it comes to sifting through all actors responsible for portraying the most powerful man on the planet, there's no shortage of options. John Travolta did a great Bill Clinton impersonation in Primary Colors and Timothy Bottoms delivered a near-perfect imitation of George W. Bush in both D.C. 9/11: Time of Crisis and That's My Bush! Neither one comes across as particularly flattering, so presidential nominee Barack Obama has chosen a safer bet: At a recent party in Los Angeles, Obama revealed that he prefers Jeff Bridges' conflicted commander-in-chief in The Contender. Granted, he may have said this simply to keep his audience happy -- in this case, Contender director Rod Lurie, one of the attendees who was willing to plop down $28,000 for the event. "'I just plugged your movie," Obama told Lurie, according to a report the director sent to Hollywood Elsewhere's Jeffrey Wells.

Still, when you're under the kind of intense scrutiny that Obama currently endures, Bridges actually seems like a pretty safe choice. Choose Anthony Hopkins in Nixon and it sounds like you're endorsing the bad guy. Choose Kevin Kline in Dave and you come across as disingenuous. Choose Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove and somebody will call you incompetent. Bridges, on the other hand, plays a fierce leader bound to his moral convictions. Of course, Obama also expressed sympathy over Lurie's short-lived television show Commander-in-Chief, which featured Geena Davis as the first woman president. Perhaps it's no coincidence that he and Hillary have publicly made amends.

Let's talk about Sex, baby ... I got an email from Melissa Silverstein over at Women and Hollywood yesterday, asking a pack of women who work in various aspects of the film industry to share our thoughts on whether a successful box office turn for Sex and the City, which opens this weekend, might herald a change in Hollywood's attitude toward chick-centric movies. Melissa posed the following questions:

• If it's a success do you think that this will change Hollywood minds about whether women can "open" movies?
  
• If it doesn't do the predicted numbers, do you think this will spell more difficulties for women centric films?
  
• Do you think that because this is an "event" that other films about women will be held up to an unrealistic standard?
  
• Do you think there is a double standard for this film?
  
• Are you surprised by the nasty tone that some of the media has taken on this week?

You can read my response, and the thoughts of some other smart women, over on Melissa's site, but in the meantime, I thought this was a great set of questions to pose to Cinematical readers. Whether you love Sex and the City or hate it, what are your thoughts on whether a big box office run for the film might change the way Hollywood thinks about movies for and about women? Discuss away ...

The film only got a brief, limited release in May, and now Variety reports that Warner Brothers has grabbed the North American DVD and pay-per-view/on-demand rights to Americanizing Shelley, which will be let loose on the American and Canadian public February 5 of next year. The brainchild of writer/producer/star Namrata Singh Gujral, and directed by Lorraine Senna (Sopranos), Shelley is a Bollywood/Hollywood production about a "wanna-be Hollywood player, who sets out to Americanize an Indian girl straight from the Himalayas." She comes to the US, sees her arranged husband smooching some white girl, and then gets picked to be Hollywood's next star.

If that's not enough to whet your appetite, how about the fact that the flick is pun-crazy? The film proves that "You Can't Curry Love!" and shows "a new game of the cowboy and the Indian." I couldn't make that up if I tried! Okay, I could, but I'm not sure that I'd want to. The former shows up on the film's website, while the latter is from the trailer. I wish I could tell you more about the film, but the synopsis on the website is just filled with puns and those lines that movie PR people love, like "Their clash in cultures soon gives way to understanding, unity, and love as they begin to see the world through each other's eyes," rather than solid info. But there is this: Shelley also co-stars has a cameo from ex-kid actor, Star Trek alum, and all-star blogger (who also occasionally writes for TV Squad) Wil Wheaton.

*Fixed thanks to Wil. Tricky website sporting Wil's face first, as if he's a co-star.

Michael Bay's Transformers hits DVD today (check out our review), and Paramount is celebrating by turning one of the film's stars loose in Los Angeles. No, unfortunately it's not Megan Fox. Standing at the West Hollywood Gateway shopping center (at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and La Brea), surrounded by shops like Target and Jamba Juice, stands Bumblebee. It's an actual prop from the film, it stands 18 feet tall, and it weighs 8,200 pounds. The robot had to be assembled and set up by a forklift and a ten-ton crane. Bumblebee will be standing guard there through this Sunday, October 21st.

I went over this morning to snap some pictures. As I rounded the corner, I was expecting a madhouse -- people pointing to the skies and screaming, running in terror, etc. Or at least, y'know, looking in its general direction! But then I remembered I was in West Hollywood. You need more than an 18 foot-tall robot to stand out in West Hollywood. I could have strolled through the shopping center buck naked and juggling infants, and still wouldn't have been given a second look. Transvestites, Transsexuals, Transformers, it's just another day in Hollywood. Still, I thought the display was pretty sweet, and snapped some photographs for those of you who can't make it to L.A. Check 'em out, won't you?

Side note -- while picking up the new Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers DVD at the Best Buy there, I bumped into none other than actor Peter Weller! Was he just picking up some headphones...or was he there to pitch a Robocop Vs. Transformers flick to Bumblebee? I report, you decide.

Celebrities all over the place are going green. Every day there is a new eco story popping up. Cate Blanchett has become an environmental stickler in her home, with efforts that include installing 2-minute timers on on her shower. (This attempt is, no doubt, helped by the fact she has stylists and the like to keep her looking fresh.) There's Sarah Michelle Gellar who rides a pink bike around, and uses reusable bags for Whole Foods discounts. And some, like Adrian Grenier, coach others on how to be more green, like his tutorials for Paris Hilton. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees these stories and spots the imbalance between an actor's work and their personal causes.

The Telegraph posted an article yesterday calling Hollywood out on being one of the biggest polluters in soCal, whilst performing "eco-friendly gestures [that are] simply showy stunts that make little difference." It sites a two-year study performed by the University of California at Los Angeles, which found that production aspects like explosions and idling vehicles are only beat by the oil industry in regards to polluting emissions. But there's also the garbage -- the sets that get built and destroyed and everything else that's necessary to create a faux world.

Warner Brothers is finally starting to recycle sets, which is a plus, and other productions try to balance their negative environmental impact with positive action -- the Evan Almighty production planted "2,000 trees to 'zero out' its greenhouse gas production." But as Ed Begley Jr. says: "If you're going to drive around in a big ol' Hummer and then buy carbon offsets to mitigate that, that's like getting drunk on the weekends and throwing some money through the window of an AA meeting and thinking you're doing something." What do you think? Do the environmentalist acts of actors mean anything when they're in a resource-sucking industry? What can Hollywood do when it relies so much on energy and materials?