Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Okay, I just don't like Maggie!

Posted by jamesgarvin on January 10, 2008 at 14:46:33:
"Besides, he says she's a character actress yet she's the lead in the film in question."

A character actress can be a lead. Kathy Bates in "Misery." Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Capote." Character actors play different roles in different films. Tom Cruise basically plays the same character from film to film. The fact that Gyllenhall played a lead does not make her a leading actress. Her characters change from role to role. She is a character actress.

"The other actresses JG mentions in his post had immense talent and it's a bit silly to mention her in the same breath."

Predictably, you miss the point. You posted that Ms. Gyllenhaal was not attractive, and therefore not leading lady material. You mentioned nothing about her talent. I used some examples of women who are, to use your likely chauvinistic parlance, physically defective in some way, or, to put it in more politically correct terms, had unattractive features, and still were successful leads. And even played a love interest.

If you would like to talk about being "silly", then we could continue talking about the merits of actresses based strictly upon their physical features.

"It's relatively easy to portray characters with over-the-top characteristics, i.e. drunks, autistic, crazy, because one can "act" so much. Far harder to play "regular Joe" where nuance is everything."

Really? Perhaps you should paste your curricum vitae here. How many drunk characters have you played? Autistic? Crazy? You characterize Ms. Gyllenhaal's performance as being of a character that has an over-the-top characteristic, yet you have not even seen the film. And further, it demonstrates that you have not read my postings on the film because I specifically wrote that her performance is decidedly not over-the-top, it is very realistic, and avoids the usual cliches.

On the other hand, due to my wife's occupation, I have come into contact with numerous mentally handicapped adults, such as the one which Sean Penn portrayed in "I am Sam." My wife works with mentally handicapped adults on a daily basis. I think Penn is a great actor. I do not claim to be an expert, but my somewhat educated opinion was that he missed the mark. My wife thought it was a caricature, and bordered on insulting. Ditto for Ribisi's performance in "The Other Sister." Another pretty good actor. Easy? Hardly.

As timing would have it, I was in Court today in which a woman with chemical dependence who has lost her three children is fighting sobriety, and is trying to get her children back. I do not represent her, but I see her struggles. Gyllenhaal nailed her performance. And, by the way, you never see her use or under the influence of anything in the film.

"Anyhow, it's probably impossible to appreciate a leading woman in a film where she's a romantic interest if the viewer finds her unattractive."

For what viewer? You the arbiter of beauty? And where is the film in which she has played a romantic interest? "Secretary?" If you think that was romantic, then I'd hate to see the romantic toys hanging in your closet. Maybe that helps to explain the "X's." Hell, take a walk down into your local Municipal or District Courts and check out the women who are arrested for Solicitation and Prostitution. And the guys who are buying. Beauty winners they ain't. Guys, though, look pretty normal.

I've never considered Kate Hepburn particularly attractive, but I have no problem with her being in a romantic role. On the other hand, I probably would not pay to see her in porn film. But I try not to confuse romance, which everyone should have the right to experience, and most people do, and which is a not a spectator sport, with an act designed to get the viewer's rocks off.

If two people can find love, companionship, trust, and all the other things we hold dear, on the screen, then why should I care what they look like?