WaPo on Jane Fonda: It’s just acting, folks
posted at 3:40 pm on March 28, 2012 by Tina Korbe
Ordinarily, I’d be thrilled with someone letting a little air out of an overinflated industry. How refreshing to read a culture columnist put into perspective what Hollywood elites do all day! They act. Oh, but it’s “brave” of them to take on a role that’s bound to earn them critical acclaim! It’s “noble” of them to portray a character with whom they don’t personally identify! It’s “breathtaking” when they recite lines amidst special effects that would make anyone look dramatic!
In this case, though, Suzi Parker’s reminder that “It’s just acting” isn’t aimed to adjust the attitudes of a self-indulgent microsociety. Parker writes:
As Fonda has matured, she looks a tad more like the former first lady with her caramel hair and chiseled features. The wardrobe department will certainly work its magic fitting her in Nancy red. We may even forget that Nancy is Jane in the handful of scenes that feature her.
Acting is just that – acting. If anyone should know that, it’s Nancy Reagan who, after all, met her beloved Ronnie in glitzy Hollywood when they were both actors.
Her words are clearly aimed to invalidate criticism of a director’s choice of actress to portray Nancy Reagan. Should Jane Fonda’s traitorous personal past disqualify her from acting the part of a loyal First Lady? Not necessarily.
But is it valid to criticize her selection even from an artistic standpoint? Absolutely. An actress is essentially a medium. The character she takes on as her own should come through her. In this case, Fonda’s very public and apparent leftism might very well render her an opaque medium through which it’s impossible for the essence of Nancy Reagan to appear. Note that even Parker only goes so far as to say we may forget that it’s Jane playing Nancy. If she were truly right for the part, we would forget it.
That’s why I’ve always marveled at the apparent eagerness of some actors and actresses eagerness to disclose their political affiliation. It renders their job infinitely harder because they have to overcome audience bias to be convincing in some roles.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Good morning Ed. Hope you are having a lovely time. ; )
Bmore on March 10, 2013 at 1:55 AM
Not everyone!!1!!!
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 3:06 AM
Let me stop you right there.
kirazy on March 10, 2013 at 3:09 AM
Sure did get late quick. Good Night Ed. Hope you are having a great time! You can delete all my mischief making in the wee hours. ; )
Bmore on March 10, 2013 at 3:13 AM
That’s blasphemy. You’re going to a very hot place.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 3:14 AM
Or I could do it now. Please don’t troll the comment threads like this, or I’ll cancel your account.
BTW, it’s 8:19 in the morning here, so it’s not difficult for me to spot this.
Ed Morrissey on March 10, 2013 at 3:19 AM
Yeah, I know, I’ve been studying a painting by Hieronymus Bosch. I downloaded a 120 mg file of The Garden of Earthly Delights. Wonderful. The far right panel, Hell, is where they put all sorts of stuff up your rear. Not good. Good Night sharrukin. ; )
Bmore on March 10, 2013 at 3:19 AM
Humans are always going to look for the ‘big picture.’ That is, if they’re smart. How could you not?) As I said in another thread, I’m not religious (at least not yet), but I’m always striving for the big picture view.
Atheism, in a Western sense, (and, yes, it is a uniquely Western concept ) which is what the lib-scum love to advocate, is itself a ‘religion.’ Not only that, but it owes itself to Christianity. Don’t bother thanking the rest of us scum!!!
WhatSlushfund on March 10, 2013 at 3:20 AM
Okay Ed, Good morning and have a nice trip. Delete them all please. ; )
Bmore on March 10, 2013 at 3:20 AM
They just switch ‘God’s Law’ and put ‘Natural Law’ or ‘Man’s Law’ in its place and delude themselves that it is somehow equivalent. I don’t believe in God either but I can’t lie to myself on such a scale.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 3:24 AM
OK, now you’re just being a H8tr.
Night.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 3:26 AM
Do you really think its true that using old masters art in that fashion is bad? I ask because someone on another thread wants me to do something with the last supper.
Bmore on March 10, 2013 at 3:28 AM
I had to look that one up.
Bmore on March 10, 2013 at 3:31 AM
No, there is nothing wrong with it unless you do something really vulgar with an image that means a lot to people. The Last Supper is something like that but if it isn’t an attack on Christianity, or vulgar then it should be OK. IMO.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 3:31 AM
I learned it from my niece who I raised.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 3:32 AM
Christianity invites inquiry. That is one of its most commendable and unique aspects. We wouldn’t have much of what we have today without Christianity. What these lib weasels try to do is somehow pretend that they are above, and totally separate from, Christianity. They are fools!
WhatSlushfund on March 10, 2013 at 3:33 AM
Yes, I’m starting to think so long as you don’t do something very offensive with it, its okay. Though defining what someone may find offensive becomes an issue.
Bmore on March 10, 2013 at 3:34 AM
Sorry sharrukin s/b not very offensive.
Bmore on March 10, 2013 at 3:35 AM
The Bible is the most interesting book ever. It doesn’t takes a brilliant person to figure out that would translate well into television.
Also, this program isn’t poorly produced like other Christian media. Although, I think the acting could have been better.
terryannonline on March 10, 2013 at 3:37 AM
My favorite History Channel religious series, by far, is from a couple years ago: “The Seven Deadly Sins”. Luscious and innovative production values takes you on a trip from the sublime (Pope Gregory 1st’s writing grotto) to the horrific (Dante’s Circles of Hell). A masterpiece that makes me put down the remote and grab the popcorn every time it’s rerun (mostly on History International).
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 10, 2013 at 3:37 AM
Their moral system is largely parasitically derived from Christian society and they cannot seem to grasp how unsustainable that is in the long term. Their children and grandchildren will not be so sentimental, and will take their ideology to its natural conclusion.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 3:46 AM
They are Christians. They have to forgive you! /
Most people tend to be fairly reasonable.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 3:47 AM
Please don’t be so quick to endorse any and all things Christian just because they are made by Christians.
I’m sure the “Bible” mini series on History channel is fine (I saw parts of it), but Christians still need to examine other films or forms of “Christian” entertainment and do not blindly accept all views or presuppositions they contain.
Here’s a review of the Christian made film “Courageous,” by a Christian:
Courageous the Movie: A review of Sherwood Baptist Church’s recent film about fatherhood, PDF by Jenny Rae Armstrong
TigerPaw on March 10, 2013 at 3:57 AM
I seriously hope you’re right. But our entire education system, the media, and the political elite are feeding their heads. I’ve tried to work my way into academia so that I can correct these misguided notions, but no luck. If you have a different idea from the pack, you will never get a job. I won’t give up though.
WhatSlushfund on March 10, 2013 at 3:58 AM
I saw Courageous. Didn’t like it all that much. The script wasn’t good and the acting was horrible.
terryannonline on March 10, 2013 at 4:04 AM
What I meant by unsentimental children are the likes Of Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler and their followers. They applied the notions of Darwinian and humanistic thought, but in ways that would have horrified those who initially promoted them. Ideologies tend to take on a life of their own and may go places that their creators would not much care for. That is one reason that men such as Leon Trotsky and Robespierre end up as the victim of their own terror.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 4:06 AM
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition…. I know I’ve heard that somewhere.
skeedro on March 10, 2013 at 4:09 AM
I actually saw most of that movie ‘Fireproof’ and it seemed to me that the women in that basically went with the man who she thought was laying down the most cash. Didn’t seem like a terribly good message. She was off to cheat with the doctor guy until she found out that her hubby was the one who paid the big bucks for what she wanted, and so she stayed with him instead of the doc.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 4:13 AM
Oh. Heh. Sorry. Completely misunderstood. But, yes. That seems to be the course that we’re on, unfortunately.
WhatSlushfund on March 10, 2013 at 4:20 AM
I just watched the first installment of The Bible, covering the Flood to the beginnings of the Battle of Jericho. It was definitely good (though a little disjointed), but it left me wanting to rewatch Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments. Too bad Netflix doesn’t have it streaming. I guess I’ll just have to settle for Genesis, Exodus, and Judges. There goes the rest of my Sunday.
steebo77 on March 10, 2013 at 6:21 AM
I wasn’t a big fan of Fireproof either. It was well-intentioned, I’m sure, but the actual plot seemed to pretty much negate the intended message.
steebo77 on March 10, 2013 at 6:25 AM
Don’t forget Flywheel and Facing The Giants, also very inspiring Sherwood films.
itsnotaboutme on March 10, 2013 at 6:45 AM
*facepalm*
This is baffling. How could you miss something so obvious? I guess if you’re extremely eager to criticize something, you’ll find a way.
Duh!
The film is about the husband’s change of heart, & how he wins his wayward wife back by his goodness.
It’s not about how wonderful she was.
itsnotaboutme on March 10, 2013 at 6:50 AM
…After all, the husband was the one who had found the Lord.
The wife had not found the Lord yet.
Could it be any simpler?
*wondering if sharrukin gets it yet*
itsnotaboutme on March 10, 2013 at 6:53 AM
We missed the first episode last week, but they are rerunning it tonight before episode 2. I’ve set the DVR to record both tonight. I predict that their audience will be even larger this week than last.
As for Hollywood, they haven’t had an original idea that I can recall in about 30 years now. Pretty funny that they think so highly of themselves.
Naturally Curly on March 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM
I’m listening to the CD audiobook edition of the companion to the series “A Story Of God And All Of Us” right now. You want to talk about a whirlwind tour of the Bible, by CD 6, you have already gone from the Creation to Daniel in the lion’s den!
pilamaye on March 10, 2013 at 8:14 AM
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:18-32
Paul pretty much covered Atheistsmin his letter to the Christians in Rome. This is justnasnvalid today as it was 2,000 years ago.
oldleprechaun on March 10, 2013 at 8:20 AM
First Rand Paul (Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, etc.) go to Washington
and stand up to our leftie, atheist and/or muslim loving government
(a strange mixture I know)and now a religious series on the
bible beats out American Idol? Its been quite a week.
I cried when I saw the filibuster and now tears are streaming
down my face when I saw this. Tears of joy indeed!
I know the Lord works in mysterious ways and within his own
time table, however, I must admit I have been anxious. I never
doubted, just lamented that it seemed to be taking so long.
Thank you Lord!
Amjean on March 10, 2013 at 9:05 AM
For a synoptic presentation it is pretty good and the start was wonderful! Very, very effective story telling to start with Noah reminding everyone of how they got to their present condition… a great way to synopsize up to that point, get just enough across to remind anyone who has been alive for more than a few years just what had come before. It is a whirlwind presentation covering the major stories of the McGuffey Readers back before they were ‘updated’.
I’m looking forward to the rest of the series.
There is just so much material that begs for a modern review that could be done in a modern style and yet also move the greater theological points forward. That requires people familiar with the material, with the cultural heritage, who are not looking to make the story ‘modern’ but to remove some of the glossiness and give more of the suffering and redemption stories that proliferate the Bible. It is that which makes the Bible one of the enduring testaments that is still the most widely published book… ever. All those copies of the Bible aren’t just salted away in Prepper’s dooomsday storage containers, you know?
I hope Ed has a great trip and will be able to report back to us just who it is that comes after the last of the Popes on the prophesy list… because we have reached The End and it will be fascinating to see what comes up with that individual.
ajacksonian on March 10, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Really. This is the thread to diss gays when the “Front Page News” is the exciting election of a new Pope?
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM
That’s very cool news. Max Robbins mentioned the series this week in his appearance on the Howie Carr show. (WRKO Boston)
dogsoldier on March 10, 2013 at 9:18 AM
When I saw the previews to History Channel’s The Bible, I was excited to watch it. It looked like a high-budget “miniseries” and judging from the teaser clips I made sure I’d watch it. Suffice to say, I was really disappointed with it.
The pace was far too quick, the acting was sub-par at best, the casting wasn’t that great, and the costumes didn’t seem right. Totally disappointing. Granted, I realize it’s not an easy task to take the bible and turn it into a movie or a few days of a TV series. It’s hard enough to take an average novel and make a 2 hour movie out of it…but the bible is an epic…and it didn’t translate well, this time, into this current form on History Channel.
JetBoy on March 10, 2013 at 9:28 AM
I watched The Bible last week with family. We loved it. I agree the flow was disjointed and a lot was left on the editing room floor. You can only cover so much in a 10 hour miniseries. The point is…this was a million times better than any other show we could have found on our 300 plus channels of vapid tv wasteland. We will watch the remaining episodes and I hope and pray the numbers climb.
dddave on March 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM
I don’t get the History Channel, so I went to the website to see if I could watch it online. No luck. Oh well.
22044 on March 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM
Thanks for the info.
Fallon on March 10, 2013 at 9:57 AM
YouTube never fails….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjteDYlSKi0
dddave on March 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Add this miniseries (which I haven’t seen yet) to the high ratings of Downton Abbey and, of all things, Duck Dynasty and maybe Hollywood should pay a little more attnention to “flyover country”.
bluealice on March 10, 2013 at 10:04 AM
“Give me three lines from the Bible and I’ll give you a movie.”
-Cecil B. DeMille
Odysseus on March 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM
…er oh!…please don’t do that!
…nice article to see…coming home from church…(I hate losing an hour with the time change)…I got ‘elbowed’ for closing my eyes during the sermon!
…when government tries to take God out of everything…I’m hoping it’s like everything else ‘they’ try to take away (like guns, light bulbs, etc)…and people start too hoard HIM!
KOOLAID2 on March 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM
I clicked through. If you want to understand how some people view it — it’s as if you took an old carving of the Lord upon his cross and placed it into a jar of urine.
I don’t view it as blasphemy — for these are pictures or carvings and not actual people — but they represent actual people — including Jesus, who is also Lord — and that’s what gets some upset.
It’s part of what Ed is talking about in this post — the appropriation of the sacred for the mundane.
That said, you’d do better if you took your subject, prior to embedding, and made said subject look as if it had been painted by the old master. My eye was drawn immediately to your modification in many of the photoshops because it is so jarringly dissimilar to what it replaced in terms of style.
I really like the “Obamacare” one — or what I would call “The Only Choice of the Patient Hereafter”.
unclesmrgol on March 10, 2013 at 12:09 PM
The Bible is a good show but I’m more hyped for Vikings!
Yakko77 on March 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Civilization and successful religions go hand in hand. Where you find one, you find the other. Conscience needs some cultivation and sometimes must be appealed to in order for it to manifest itself. Most humans have a potential for good and even a yearning for it; but religion provides better growth conditions for it. It its absence, the weeds can take over the field.
KW64 on March 10, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Keep in mind Sherwood Pictures is actually an arm of Sherwood Baptist Church. Two brothers from the church–Alex and Stephen Kendrick–are behind all of the productions. They may be the only ones from the church with any kind of video and production experience. Often the rest of the cast and always the total production (make-up, extras, sets, etc.) is made up of people from Sherwood Baptist Church. So expecting Hollywood standards is asking a bit much. Even so, with each film they get better. Watch Flywheel and compare it with Courageous and you’ll see what I mean.
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_Pictures
and here is the reason for the how and why they make the films: http://sherwoodpictures.com/how-we-do-it/
As I commented on PJMedia’s site, Sherwood Pictures’ endeavors are definitely a case of “lighting a single candle instead of cursing the darkness,” so I don’t lift them up to the Hollywood standard that others might, considering the constraints they are under (using their own church for talent).
Let me put it this way–Sherwood Pictures has chosen to take a step and make films that obviously are wanted in America today (Courageous’ box office returns proved that). If the Kendrick brothers had gone to Hollywood to try to make films there–would we even be talking about Courageous? I seriously doubt the cesspool that Hollywood is would have allowed the film to be made. And since Sherwood Pictures’ films appear to fulfill a need that is going largely unmet, I say more power to them. Perhaps, given time, they may be able to up their ante and make better quality films as time goes on.
I’d rather support their efforts than write them off completely while they are still a fledgling production company.
theotherone on March 10, 2013 at 12:35 PM
Agreed! And Bmore has proven himself in recent months, an artist. I have enjoyed his talent, as it has proved irreverent, quirky, sometimes slap-happy insolent, and occasionally damn near brilliant.
Andres Serrano’s crucifix-in-urine was both visually startling and viscerally repugnant. But as for relatively benign comedy such as Bmore’s links, sure you can argue against the quality of his obvious photoshops, but he does display a point of view. And that’s what art’s all about.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 10, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Of course the Bible is a big hit on TV. The religious people watch it to confirm their beliefs, and the non-religious watch it to confirm their beliefs.
It’s a freak show.
keep the change on March 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM
…YEP!
KOOLAID2 on March 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM
He didn’t win her back, he bought her…and if he had done a little comparison shopping he could have found that sort of woman available for a lot cheaper than $24,000.
sharrukin on March 10, 2013 at 3:04 PM
I quit watching THE BIBLE about 35 minutes into the first episode when the asian angel whips out two swords amd commences to hack up citizens of Sodom and Gommorah as they attempt to chase down Lot and his family.
Sorry Yakko 77, I’ll be disappointedly avoiding THE VIKINGS because it has the now well worn cliche of women in the ranks, handling broadswords etc.
I know this will open a huge can of crap but fallacies are fallacies regardless of if they’re fashionable. (G.K.Chesterson)
sanjuro on March 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM