The Feb. 9 issue of the New Yorker is missing from the apartment. The blame falls not on the cats, who are known to tear things (even well-written, pretentious weeklies) to shreds; not on the abyss, as is called the phenomenon of suckage that claims everything from socks to thesis abstracts; but on my partner, who, in a fit of food poisoning brought on by the lunch buffet at an otherwise delicious Indian restaurant, spewed all over the living room. Victims of his vomit, or “The Great Curry Spew” as it is known, included several bills, a towel, a backrest, and the Feb. 9 copy of the New Yorker, may they rest in peace.
A hunt for the issue online proved not only fruitless but frustrating, though it brought attention to David Denby’s excellent article about “The Passion of the Christ” (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema). The search was for an article concerning not only Charlize Theron’s wowee zowee (note: “wowee zowee” is not a direct quote from the New Yorker) Oscar-nominated performance in “Monster,” but film actresses as a whole. We are, apparently, living through a golden age for women on the silver screen.
Apparently, Anthony Lane has yet to see “The Italian Job.”
Thinking of this and watching a newly purchased copy of “Emma” I wondered if perhaps the Jane Austen-remake fad of the mid-90s provide a better example of women gilding the screen than the films of 2003.
Kiesha Castle-Hughes (“Wale Rider”) vs. Amanda Root (“Persuasion”)
Easily the most realistic of the Austen remakes (well, up until the last few frames), “Persuasion” features British stage actress Amanda Root, who realizes the role of Anne Eliot perfectly, right down to her eyes, which seem to have dialogue of their own. Pitted against Castle-Hughes, we must compare two unknown actresses and two stellar performances, but the tide ebbs for Castle-Hughes on account of her youth (does the name Tatum O’Neil mean anything to you?) and previous acting experience (none). Not that we don’t wish her the best, when it comes right down to it, the classically-trained Root blows her out of the, um, water. The Oscar goes to Root, for making “Persuasion” a cult classic, at least for JASNA (Jane Austen Society of North America) enthusiasts.
Diane Keaton (“Something’s Gotta Give”) vs. Sophie Thompson (“Persuasion” and “Emma”)
In this kind of situation, it’s easy to want to reward someone for their entire body of work, rather than their work in the specific film at hand. This problem is ubiquitous this year-if “The Return of the King” wins best picture it will doubtlessly be on behalf of the entire trilogy. Sophie (Emma’s sister) Thompson shines both as bitchy hypochondriac Mary Musgrove in “Persuasion” and as mousy, mouthy Mrs. Bates in “Emma.” Awarding one performance seems moot without recognizing the other; similarly if Keaton were to win, it would not only reflect her performance as an aging-yet-still-horny woman in “Something’s Gotta Give,” but on a career of excellence. Still, when thinking of Keaton’s career, it’s hard to make her over into an actress of today. Her heyday was the late 70s, and though it’s more than meaningful to see her classy and brilliant on screen twenty-five years later, the Oscar goes to Thompson for her more measured, supporting skill, and of course her modernity.
Samantha Morton (“In America”) vs. Kate Winslet (“Sense and Sensibility”)
Ok, this comparison is kind of fortuitous since Winslet actually was nominated and lost, which is exactly how bookies expect Morton to fare. Most of us who are slightly crazed about Jane Austen movies love Morton because of her performance in the A&E film version of “Jane Eyre,” and love A&E for being the BBC’s American pimp. We are delighted to see Morton succeed in mainstream cinema, although it was scary to see her in “Minority Report” alongside Tom Cruise, who, if put to the test, would probably make a really lousy Mr. Rochester. Like Morton, Winslet was a virtual unknown when she received her first Oscar nomination, though we hope that the nod brings Morton the attention she deserves. More likely, Morton will continue as an actress of note for those in the know, and as Samantha Who? for everyone else. And so the Oscar goes to Winslet, and her perfectly agreeable performance of Marianne Dashwood.
At the end of the evening, it will almost certainly be Charlize Theron who walks away gold in hand, and no amount of lauding the best actresses of 1994 will take away from Theron’s performance in “Monster,” the best of 2004. Kate Beckinsale’s BBC performance, despite opinions on the Internet Movie Database, was better than Gwyneth Paltrow’s Miramax performance as Emma, precisely because Emma is not meant to be likable. Emma Thompson won for screenwriting, not acting, though her performance as Eleanor Dashwood was flawless. Perhaps what the New Yorker should have said is not that we are living through a great age of women on screen, but that we are living through an age of finally recognizing it.