TITLE: EW and the Oscar curse/blessing AUTHOR: Joe Johnson DATE: 6:24:00 AM ----- BODY:
Entertainment Weekly came out with its list of the 25 most shameless, money grubbing rolls in film. Not surprisingly Sir Ben Kingsley (Gandhi, Sexy Beast) came out near the top for his work in Uwe Boll's BloodRayne - he could have just as easily been nominated for A Sound of Thunder, Species or Thunderbirds. Then they introduced a sidebar appealing to Rachel Weisz to stay away from another Mummy movie.

Mrs. Weisz joins that list of actors with an Academy Award and a tendency for playful - or outright bad - films. I don't know if it’s necessary to mention Catwoman Halle Berry or Aeon Flux Charize Theron (though I just did). There's now a fear that the Academy will be impugned for its good judgment based on the subsequent careers of its winners.

But is an Academy Award reason for Rachel Weisz or Halley Berry or any actor to avoid dumb movies? At least in the case of B*A*P*S/The Flintstones-Berry, there's precedent for non-prestigious film work. If she does a Jinx spin-off or Storm movie, who cares? I'm not going to watch it, but someone else will.

Perhaps the Oscar has the right to demand more from its recipients, but does it mean that an actor has the responsibility to avoid shameless mass entertainment?

First of all, I hope Weisz does another Mummy movie if - and this is the important part - the script is right. And she probably will - if the script is right. What we expect from any actor is discernment and consistency, not a class distinction.

Rachel Weisz has experimented in a number of genres, but generally her bad films are still decent. Even if she never says, "Pembroke scholars" again, the truth is that her work in the Mummy series (along with another talented, but "less discerning" actor, Brendan Fraser) gave enough gravity to that film, that the CGI muck was acceptable. Likewise, my affection for Constantine would probably be diminished with a lesser actor taking the role of Angela/Isabel.

There are three reasons for following the work of an actor. First, they did a roll that forever impacted us. I will watch a movie with Cary Elwes because of The Princes Bride or Val Kilmer because of Real Genius. Second, They have a charisma that pulls us back in. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan capitalized on audience affection for a decade of films. Finally, because they have a consistency of performance - you know that no matter what happens in the film, that actor (i.e. Crispin Glover, Peter Stormare, Tilda Swinton, Bill Murray) will give me something to redeem the experience. (Of course, Bill Murray did two Garfield films that I will never watch.)

I've gone to a movie because an actor won an award for that film, but never because an actor had previously won an award. The Oscar is not a reason for following an actor's career, nor should it be reason for that actor to change the way they choose roles. Hopefully, it gives them the freedom to choose exactly the roles that most appeal to them.

What we all hope for is consistency, which is perhaps why someone like Ben Kingsley is so frustrating. It's not that he did Gandhi, and should only do Gandhi. He was also great as the Vice President in Dave. But though I trust a Kingsley performance to be solid, I don't trust him to do good movies. And that's all we hope for with Rachel Weisz.

Labels:

--------