How to Lose Hollywood and Alienate Critics...
October 6th 2008 19:24
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People
By Matthew Frendo
Never has a title been so apt, as in the case of "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People". From the trailers, one would easily assume that it is a skewering take on Hollywood and all its vapid shallowness. In fact, reading most mainstream critics, you will see that they were almost universally disappointed with this aspect of the film, with most claiming something along the lines that it was not "biting" enough satirically. Thing is, the mainstream critics got the whole idea wrong, as a cynical skewering of Hollywood was not the films focal point. While it does do something of that nature, to a mild extent, it mainly treats the Hollywood stars as almost vacuums, who are more or less passively going along with the experience, as opposed to the manipulative and nearly evil "stars" who are portrayed in nearly every other Hollywood satire (press agents on the other hand…). No, the real target being aimed at here, and this is why the title is so fitting, are the fans themselves. This movie shows the stupidity of worshiping Hollywood stars and those who are in their inner circle (in other words, it takes aim at those who read publications such as US Weekly without doing so for the sake of irony).
In fact, I cannot think of another movie that so exemplified the credo of punk rock, and this one did so without ever mentioning the musical form or corresponding attitude. Simon Pegg plays Sidney Young, a British writer who gets a job at Sharp magazine in New York. Sidney, as a writer, is known for taking aim at movie and music stars who are pompous, arrogant, and/or stupid. This, however, does not fit well at Sharp magazine, where every article is done to enhance a star's PR. Kirsten Dunst plays a veteran reporter for Sharp who cannot stand Sidney at first, yet grows to really like him. Megan Fox plays Sophie Maes, the hottest starlet in town who's on her way to winning her first Academy Award for playing Mother Theresa in a romantic drama.The story chronicles Sidney's journey through the bowels of Hollywood as a magazine writer who doesn't want his life resigned to puff pieces and PR profiles.
The real genius of the film, however, is exemplified through the female casting roles. You have Kirsten Dunst, who plays a seasoned reporter who came into the game hoping to be a hard hitting journalist while writing a novel on the side. While striving for this, she settled into the Hollywood lifestyle and chose style over substance. At the end of it all, she finds herself unfulfilled with such a life.
Megan Fox plays the newest Hollywood starlet, who is just letting things happen to her while doing what she is told (at one point, when asked how she likes being newly uber-famous, she replies "I don't know. If feels like it's not me."). She is young and being swept away by fame and glamour.
The two acting choices above were perfect for exactly the opposite reason: Kirsten Dunst is her character, while Megan Fox most assuredly is not.
Kirsten came on the scene as a child in "Interview with a Vampire". She then became known as quite the talented actress, turning in performances in "Wag the Dog", "The Virgin Suicides", "Drop Dead Gorgeous", as well as various indie fare. Then she did the Spider Man series. At this point, the gutsy, indie acting choices faded, being replaced by dismal Hollywood fare such as "Wimbledon" and "Elizabethtown". One can assume that happiness left about the same point as she checked into a rehab clinic just a few months ago (and it kind of goes without saying that those checking into rehab probably don't maintain the happiest demeanor). Where she goes from here is anyone's guess.
Megan Fox, at first glance, appears to be the starlet she is portraying on the screen. She's gorgeous, talented, and on the cover of every mens magazine every other month. But if you actually read these articles (and I do admit that it is hard to get past the pictures at times), you'll see that what she's saying is not the normal PR soundbites. Talks of lesbian affairs with strippers and other actresses, a body full of tattoos (which she plans to get more of just to spite those who don't like them), and dating a guy nearly 20 years her senior (and, on top of that, he's not on the current Hollywood A-list) are not fodder that the usual US Weekly reader finds appealing. In fact, many of the above would be commercial suicide if said by most any actress.
Which is why these two were perfect for their roles. Kirsten Dunst lived her role, so she was able to add a very personal feel to it. Megan Fox is the opposite of her role while living the life of a Hollywood actress, which is why she was able to give a satirical performance while still finding an air of vulnerability within. No one else could have played either part as well as Kirsten Dunst or Megan Fox.
As for Simon Pegg, well, he's just a lucky bastard to have been so close to two such beautiful ladies.
And, as for the critics who found the film lacking, well, I wouldn't be surprised to find out they're the writers of the puff pieces being so scathingly scrutinized.
By Matthew Frendo
Never has a title been so apt, as in the case of "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People". From the trailers, one would easily assume that it is a skewering take on Hollywood and all its vapid shallowness. In fact, reading most mainstream critics, you will see that they were almost universally disappointed with this aspect of the film, with most claiming something along the lines that it was not "biting" enough satirically. Thing is, the mainstream critics got the whole idea wrong, as a cynical skewering of Hollywood was not the films focal point. While it does do something of that nature, to a mild extent, it mainly treats the Hollywood stars as almost vacuums, who are more or less passively going along with the experience, as opposed to the manipulative and nearly evil "stars" who are portrayed in nearly every other Hollywood satire (press agents on the other hand…). No, the real target being aimed at here, and this is why the title is so fitting, are the fans themselves. This movie shows the stupidity of worshiping Hollywood stars and those who are in their inner circle (in other words, it takes aim at those who read publications such as US Weekly without doing so for the sake of irony).
In fact, I cannot think of another movie that so exemplified the credo of punk rock, and this one did so without ever mentioning the musical form or corresponding attitude. Simon Pegg plays Sidney Young, a British writer who gets a job at Sharp magazine in New York. Sidney, as a writer, is known for taking aim at movie and music stars who are pompous, arrogant, and/or stupid. This, however, does not fit well at Sharp magazine, where every article is done to enhance a star's PR. Kirsten Dunst plays a veteran reporter for Sharp who cannot stand Sidney at first, yet grows to really like him. Megan Fox plays Sophie Maes, the hottest starlet in town who's on her way to winning her first Academy Award for playing Mother Theresa in a romantic drama.The story chronicles Sidney's journey through the bowels of Hollywood as a magazine writer who doesn't want his life resigned to puff pieces and PR profiles.
The real genius of the film, however, is exemplified through the female casting roles. You have Kirsten Dunst, who plays a seasoned reporter who came into the game hoping to be a hard hitting journalist while writing a novel on the side. While striving for this, she settled into the Hollywood lifestyle and chose style over substance. At the end of it all, she finds herself unfulfilled with such a life.
Megan Fox plays the newest Hollywood starlet, who is just letting things happen to her while doing what she is told (at one point, when asked how she likes being newly uber-famous, she replies "I don't know. If feels like it's not me."). She is young and being swept away by fame and glamour.
The two acting choices above were perfect for exactly the opposite reason: Kirsten Dunst is her character, while Megan Fox most assuredly is not.
Kirsten came on the scene as a child in "Interview with a Vampire". She then became known as quite the talented actress, turning in performances in "Wag the Dog", "The Virgin Suicides", "Drop Dead Gorgeous", as well as various indie fare. Then she did the Spider Man series. At this point, the gutsy, indie acting choices faded, being replaced by dismal Hollywood fare such as "Wimbledon" and "Elizabethtown". One can assume that happiness left about the same point as she checked into a rehab clinic just a few months ago (and it kind of goes without saying that those checking into rehab probably don't maintain the happiest demeanor). Where she goes from here is anyone's guess.
Megan Fox, at first glance, appears to be the starlet she is portraying on the screen. She's gorgeous, talented, and on the cover of every mens magazine every other month. But if you actually read these articles (and I do admit that it is hard to get past the pictures at times), you'll see that what she's saying is not the normal PR soundbites. Talks of lesbian affairs with strippers and other actresses, a body full of tattoos (which she plans to get more of just to spite those who don't like them), and dating a guy nearly 20 years her senior (and, on top of that, he's not on the current Hollywood A-list) are not fodder that the usual US Weekly reader finds appealing. In fact, many of the above would be commercial suicide if said by most any actress.
Which is why these two were perfect for their roles. Kirsten Dunst lived her role, so she was able to add a very personal feel to it. Megan Fox is the opposite of her role while living the life of a Hollywood actress, which is why she was able to give a satirical performance while still finding an air of vulnerability within. No one else could have played either part as well as Kirsten Dunst or Megan Fox.
As for Simon Pegg, well, he's just a lucky bastard to have been so close to two such beautiful ladies.
And, as for the critics who found the film lacking, well, I wouldn't be surprised to find out they're the writers of the puff pieces being so scathingly scrutinized.
| 74 |
| Vote |
Comments (1)
Add Comments
Read More