Skip to main content

Jennifer Lawrence's "admirable" deference

Daniel D'Addario wrote this: 

Jennifer Lawrence, at this year’s Golden Globes, seemed stunned to have won her second prize there in two years. “HFPA, you really are, just, too kind!” she said to the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, thanking her “American Hustle” director and fellow nominees before saying, “I’m sorry I’m shaking so much — don’t ever do this again! It’s so scary!”

She seems to have meant it. The 2013 Golden Globe and Oscar champion, Lawrence has put absolutely no effort into campaigning for a second Oscar — one that would make her only the sixth person in history, and the first since Tom Hanks, to win in consecutive years. 

[…]

The official reason, here, is not solely pique (as it is in the case of Lawrence’s “Hustle” costar Christian Bale) but the contingencies of Lawrence’s filming schedule, one that “Hustle” director David O. Russell called “12 years of slavery.” Hooked into the “X-Men” and “Hunger Games” franchises, Lawrence’s life is largely composed of long, action-packed shooting days; that she was able to get away to shoot “American Hustle” is a function of the fact that the role is a long cameo.
It’s a short, funny role — and Lawrence’s main competition in the best supporting actress race is Lupita Nyong’o — the likable new star whose performance in “12 Years a Slave” is riveting and heartbreaking. For all Lawrence’s accolades, Nyong’o, who won the Screen Actors Guild Award and seems to be the critical favorite, has gathered as many.
They’re a picture in contrasts: Lawrence, at 23, has already scooped up three Oscar nominations and the big prize. Nyong’o, at 30, waited for “Slave” to make her film debut (she’d previously been getting a drama degree at Yale). If Lawrence wins, it won’t necessarily be undeserved — she’s quite amusing in “Hustle” — but will document just how much easier it is for an actress who looks like Lawrence to triumph generally. There simply aren’t nonwhite actresses who have won multiple Oscars, ever, let alone before their 25th birthday.
And, to her credit, Lawrence, who asked the Hollywood Foreign Press to never honor her again, seems to know that. ("Jennifer Lawrence doesn't want a second Oscar now," Salon.com)
-----

Two recent heroes of yours are Bob Costas, for disregard of his health, and Jennifer Lawrence, for still being abashed at her success, just wanting to be an ordinary person. The individual who denies -- gets your vote. Sounds like a traditionally conservative preference, something we'd see at play in a Clint Eastwood movie -- by the "hero" -- with the "villains" unwilling to deny their health, nor absent themselves tributes, just so they seem malleable for others' fantasy requirements of them. 
Costas and Lawrence can be moved about. Costas by patriotism, and Lawrence in order to show she's not full of herself, spoiled. I'll applaud them when they grow out of it, 'cause it's just awful to see people who can be owned. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…