Clang! Clang! Clang! Variety is reporting that Anne Hathaway is going to become Frances Ethel Gumm (i.e. Judy Garland) in a biopic called Get HappyWhen will the madness end? If the pop culture on pop culture on pop culture joke weren't overplayed already, I'd be peering out from under a bedsheet, mascara running face contorted screaming...
LEAVE JUDY ALONE!!!
Judy Garland is one of the film experience's sacred ten* and just as She Could Go On Singing, I Can Go On Bitching that she does not get the credit she deserves. Another biopic detailing her sad life probably won't do much for her legacy which should be one of enormous contribution to cinematic and musical culture rather than yet another recounting of her personal tragedies. See, they didn't call her "The World's Greatest Entertainer" for nothing. Can we please talk about that.
Judy G was the subject of a popular television biopic as recently as 2001. Tammy Blanchard played her as a young starlet. Judy Davis took over as she became a great star and netted AFI, Globe, BFCA, SAG and Emmy statues, a sizeable haul by any account, for her impersonation.
Now, it's no secret that my love for Anne Hathaway has been growing exponentially (she made me love her. I didn't wanna do it. I didn't wanna do it) these past couple of years but is she right for this? She keeps getting stronger as an actress and she can sing beautifully but, here's the catch: Would they really let anyone not lipsynch to Judy? (This isn't a Tommy Femia show! It's a movie) And if Hathaway is going to be in a musical I want to hear that showtune friendly voice of hers, damnit.
Hathaway turns 27 this year and even though I'm no great fan of biopics I must admit that it's probably the perfect age to play Garland. It's young enough to just barely get away with playing her as a teen star and it's old enough to play her at the peak of her movie powers (the Meet Me in St. Louis years of the mid 40s) followed by her quick flameout and first career ressurrection. I think modern audiences tend to think that Judy Garland's comeback in A Star is Born (1954) was the comeback of a middle aged star, regaining her luster for another iconic role (in the same category as Bette Davis in All About Eve for example). But it's not so. Garland was in fact only 32 when A Star is Born surfaced. Like the last inimitable iconic vocalist to get a biopic (Edith Piaf, who some consider the French Judy) she aged rapidly. That's what numerous addictions will do to you. (Let us pray they don't feel the need to scramble Judy's narrative)
Would Hathaway win a Marion Cotillard style Oscar doing this or is this just a bad idea all around? I suspect it's a moot question. Remember when various actresses were going to play Marlene Dietrich (Uma Thurman, Gwyneth Paltrow, etc...)? That bio also didn't have a script or a director. It was merely a dream vehicle intended to drive someone towards gold statues. It never found keys for the ignition.
Updated to add ~ Paul Outlaw is right: Hathaway actually looks more like Judy's offspring Liza Minnelli
and she's never had a biopic. It figures. I have an unhealthy relationship to biopics and she's one of the only stars I'd love to see get one. Therefore it shan't happen. My love is a curse!
*for new readers, the other nine favorite actresses in alpha order: Deneuve, Davis, Fonda, Monroe, Moore, Pfeiffer, Streep, Taylor and Wood. But here's the top 20 and here's the top 100 ...because why stop at 10? There are so many actresses worth loving?
.jpg)
0 Yorumlar