Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2018 3:49:41 GMT
It's so hard to imagine it being made without Todd Haynes, but apparently the project had been in Sandy Powell's lap since the early 90s... Could you imagine it?  |
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Dec 27, 2018 14:34:42 GMT
It's so hard to imagine it being made without Todd Haynes, but apparently the project had been in Sandy Powell's lap since the early 90s... Could you imagine it? Glenn and Winona??? No, just no😕 Now Jessica Lange with either Noni or Jennifer Connelly... Hell yeah 💖 |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 27, 2018 15:20:20 GMT
It's interesting because my complaints about that film are all with Haynes but without Haynes I don't think you'd have gotten that film which makes me think my complaints might be...............wait for it.......... wrong (not admitting to being wrong, that would be preposterous !). I haven't read the book and know the book has a happy ending which is unheard of in this material - I mean this is Fassbinder stuff and he never ended anything happy, ever  - but Haynes engages in filmmaking tricks which depending on your POV (and hence my ambivalence in opinion) either engages in a brilliant fake-out which makes the ending triumphant or is just too much of a swerve. By filmmaking techniques I mean - lots of thematic obfuscation - people behind shadows or glass walls or red herrings (how the gun is portrayed etc). I think the first thing you'd have to know is how Jordan saw the material since of course he wouldn't necessarily shoot it the same way or have seen it overall in the same way. I will say the Haynes movie is, for the size of the film, setting, and the attention it received rather........groundbreaking even if I felt it was a bit of a curveball to me and which maybe was his exact point (since I'm white, male, straight - why do we get all the happy endings etc.). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2018 15:37:38 GMT
HELENA MARIA - The point isn't to make a steamy lesbian softcore porno (I was a little perturbed by the replies to the news of the Winslet/Ronan film...), but even if it were, Close's eroticism is iconic (Fatal Attraction) because it is so convincing and yet utterly unconventional at the same time. pacinoyes - But can you see Close and Ryder in the Blanchett/Mara roles at that time? 
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 27, 2018 15:45:29 GMT
Of course although you're going to have to start a whole other thread for to talk about Winona Ryder's pluses and minuses as an actress - she has both and is pivotal in American cinema - at least as pivotal as Johnny Depp and constantly misrepresented or misunderstood.
Ryder, in the hands of an astute director (which Jordan sometimes was) could be stupendous in this role or too waif like - Therese is tougher than Ryder sometimes showed on film but it's not out of her capabilities as an actress. Close, would be more clearly fine as Carol.
|
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 27, 2018 15:46:44 GMT
Close isn't pretty enough for the role. It's rude but it's true.
Michelle Pfeiffer then yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Dec 27, 2018 16:19:23 GMT
HELENA MARIA - The point isn't to make a steamy lesbian softcore porno (I was a little perturbed by the replies to the news of the Winslet/Ronan film...), but even if it were, Close's eroticism is iconic (Fatal Attraction) because it is so convincing and yet utterly unconventional at the same time. pacinoyes - But can you see Close and Ryder in the Blanchett/Mara roles at that time? I'm aware of that but for some reason I can't picture Close as Carol, sorry. Maybe it's because she seems to lack a little bit of warmth. I don't know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2018 2:21:44 GMT
Close isn't pretty enough for the role. It's rude but it's true. Michelle Pfeiffer then yes. Hm... I disagree. She's never been ingenue-pretty, no, but I think she's very attractive (beautiful bone structure - she's aged magnificently) - very well-groomed and moneyed-looking. Her look from The Stepford Wives:  |
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Dec 28, 2018 4:07:20 GMT
Joan Allen and Keri Russell.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 28, 2018 10:38:58 GMT
Close isn't pretty enough for the role. It's rude but it's true. Michelle Pfeiffer then yes. Hm... I disagree. She's never been ingenue-pretty, no, but I think she's very attractive (beautiful bone structure - she's aged magnificently) - very well-groomed and moneyed-looking. Her look from The Stepford Wives: I'm not sure I understand the logic of the looks complaint here anyway - who says Carol has to be "that" pretty - I mean not only pretty people are involved in relationships - take a look at the hideous troglodytes of both genders who are presenting themselves as couples in the non-movie world and be prepared to be mortified -and the attraction of Therese to Carol can have as much or more so to do with her wealth, position of power, how she carries herself and a quality within her of needing someone (both of them), a mysterious allure, in short chemistry really. I mean Close not being more overtly pretty enough would have applied maybe more 10 years earlier to Fatal Attraction imo which she completely pulled off (my complaints with that film aside) rather than Carol. |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 28, 2018 10:50:27 GMT
I can see Close as Carol, but I would like Vanessa Paradis or Rachel Leigh Cook for Therese. And of course I'd have anyone but Haynes, but that's another story.
pacinoyes makes a good point, you know. There are couples where one looks like he's from Mars, and the girl looks like she's from Jupiter. Such weird combinations these days.
|
|
- but Haynes engages in filmmaking tricks which depending on your POV (and hence my ambivalence in opinion) either engages in a brilliant fake-out which makes the ending triumphant or is just too much of a swerve. By filmmaking techniques I mean - lots of thematic obfuscation - people behind shadows or glass walls or red herrings (how the gun is portrayed etc).
