the hours Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Whenever I hear about esteemed literary or cinematic figures dipping their toes into horror waters, I always picture them holding their noses as they're running to the bank to cash their checks. They know horror sells (as long as it's decent), and they know horror fans are uncommonly broadminded, so I always feel like they're invading our territory just to try and take advantage of us and make a buck. On the other hand, who'd think that a high-minded director like Stanley Kubrick could make a spooky picture, or that Martin Stinkin' Scorsese might have made a ghost story out of Shutter Island?

All that to say, I'm keeping an open mind about Michael Cunningham's original script for Beautiful Girl, "a scary genre thriller," according to Variety, about a "shy but brainy high school girl who returns for senior year after having slimmed down six dress sizes. She finds herself flirting with the handsome English lit teacher, but the mutual crush turns deadly when the teacher's obsession with the student compels him to exact maniacal revenge on everyone who was cruel to her." Screen Gems bought the rights to the script.

More at Horror Squad!

So Nicole Kidman might have already proven she can sing (a little), but is she really good enough to tackle the White Queen of Soul? Michael Cunningham, writer of The Hours and A Home at the End of the World, told NY Magazine that Kidman will star as singing legend Dusty Springfield in a music biopic that he is currently writing the screenplay for.

Springfield began her career at the tender age of 11, and by 1963 she had recorded her first major hit, I Only Want to Be With You. By 1967, the star had tired of show business and proceeded to record a string of flops from 1971 to 1986. Her comeback came in 1987 when The Pet Shop Boys asked her to sing on their hit What Have I Done to Deserve This? Springfield passed away from breast cancer in 1995 at the age of 60.

I will say it's about time that some more female vocalists got the biopic treatment (because Lady Sings the Blues and Coal Miner's Daughter are just not cutting it). Springfield had a tumultuous life full of addictions to drugs and alcohol, not to mention the pervasive stories of her struggles with her sexuality -- plenty of fodder for a juicy biopic. Considering working with Cunningham earned the actress her first Oscar, this project seems like a slam dunk for Kidman. Lord knows, she could use a hit.

As Hollywood prepares for its latest surge of biopics, yesterday's New York Times featured a very interesting article that posed the folllowing question: When it comes to acting in a biopic, is is better to mimic or transcend? As the Times points out, back in the day, there wasn't much of a debate. Despite not looking much like their characters, folks like Robert Redford (All the President's Men) and Warren Beatty (Bonnie and Clyde) had no problem convincingly portraying historical figures without dramatically alter their appearances.

However, you can't help but be blown away after witnessing the transformations Nicole Kidman (The Hours) and Charlize Theron (Monster) completed as part of their respective takes on Virginia Woolf and the real-life serial killer Aileen Wuornos. Sure, Theron did a nice job of capturing Wuornos through her acting, but let's face it -- there's no way she would have won an Oscar without all that make-up.

Some would argue a great actor shouldn't have to completely change his or her look in order to capture the essence of a person. This past year, Philip Seymour Hoffman (who looks nothing like the writer) dazzled as Truman Capote, despite barely changed his appearance for the role. Same goes for Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon when they took on Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash in Walk the Line.

So, I ask you: Is it important to you for an actor (or actress) to change their appearance when starring in a biopic, should they look nothing like the person they're portraying?