Blaming Nicole Kidman

I take offense to two harsh pieces about Nicole Kidman's box office prowess (or lack thereof) in the LA Times and The Guardian. The titles are even inflammatory- The Guardian: Nicole Kidman is queen of the flops; LA Times: Nicole Kidman: Movie star or box-office loser? Let's be honest, Australia has some good things in it, but it is not a good movie. It just doesn't work. That is Baz Lurhmann's fault, not Kidman's. While her performance was way too stiff in the beginning, she, and her character relaxed and I wound up enjoyed her and Hugh Jackman. But the story was dreadful, and again that is not her fault.

Has anyone taken the time to write about Hugh Jackman's box office issues? He's made a bunch of duds (Deception, The Fountain) but is a star (and the Sexiest Man according to People Magazine) because of the X-Men franchise. Get a guy a franchise and and he's a star. Women have a harder time being franchise players. For example Halle Berry. No one is going to make a movie about her X-Men character, but they sure did make a movie about Wolverine.

It's strange that there are a bunch of articles written about Nicole Kidman as a box office star when we don't get articles like that for women like Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet and until recently Meryl Streep. They are just fantastic actresses.

Kidman really has never been a box office star on her own (and I would venture to say that she could care less about it) but she for some reason has been painted with this brush. Is it because she was married to Tom Cruise or that she was in a Batman movie? The films she took that are supposed to be commercial have sucked (Bewitched, The Stepford Wives). Her non-commercial ones are better. However, I couldn't get through Fur, (as I couldn't get through Jackman's The Fountain) but liked Birth and Margot at the Wedding a lot. Her most recent "flop" before Australia, The Golden Compass made $70 million in the US but over $300 million overseas which is a big deal since the story was about a girl. (God forbid she should get any credit for that, she only gets blamed for the flops.)

But most importantly, Kidman is just emblematic of the obsession with opening weekend dollars and how women still can't rate compared to the guys. Instead of blaming the actresses why don't we figure out a way for them to be successful?

From Patrick Goldstein at the LA Times:

What's really depressing is that when you ask marketing execs to name the actresses that do earn their keep, you're usually met with silence. There are always caveats: Meryl Streep in the right role, as with "Mamma Mia!" Angelina Jolie, who can put some extra oomph in a genre film like "Wanted." Reese Witherspoon or Sandra Bullock in the right kind of comedy. In today's Hollywood, it's a lot easier to build a career as a respected actress than as a box-office icon. Whether you're Nicole Kidman or anyone else, it's a man's, man's, man's world.

No wonder she talks about quitting acting. She can't do anything right. I for one will keep pulling for her simply because her performance as Virginia Woolf in The Hours was breathtaking and I am hopeful she has a couple of more of those inside her.

Comments

[carolsstudio]

Nicole gets blamed for the bombs because she is paid $20 million to star in her movies.
Her string of bombs is consistent and greatly outnumber her hits.
If she would lay off the botox her face could register some emotion, then maybe she
would connect with her audience again.

[BrunoMachiavelli]

I saw "Bewitched" with my son in the same summer I discovered the DVD of Dogville. Seeing both of those films, back-to-back in the same summer, confirmed for me that she is one of the best, most versatile actresses working today. "Bewitched" was fluff, and didn't try to be anything more. It was a gig. Whatever. But if you haven't seen Dogville, you have missed a superlative piece of cinema.

[Clever Screen Name]

The issue, Melissa, is only being discussed because Ms. Kidman is the highest-paid actor in her category, commanding a fee commensurate with being able to deliver an audience. She is essentially a very fine character actor, different from movie to movie, and not a "movie star"-type actor who delivers a recognizable thing in every performance. If only she got paid what Kate Winslet gets paid, nobody would be writing these articles or having this conversation.

[phinney]

Nicole has already proved that she can deliver. She gets the big bucks because she is an Academy Award winner. Now all those other folks who are a part of making a successful movie must do their jobs, like write a good script and edit correctly.

[totaleclipse]

You hit the nail on the head here. She doesn't pick consistently solid material and in doing so loses the credibility she acquired when doing things like The Hours. I like Nicole Kidman as a person she seems pretty easy going and nice. But there is something about her on screen that I as a woman do not relate to and therefore never see any of her films in the theater. Not once. She should try to stick to the meatier roles and leave epics to the actresses who have wide cross-gender appeal. I don' t know a single man who is excited to see Nicole Kidman in a film. Not a one. Combine that with the lack of women I know who are drawn to her...and you get the dismal box office for an epic like Australia.
Oh - and I don't understand the Hugh Jackman thing either. Putting two so-so draws together in an epic was a recipe for disaster. I'm sure if Russell Crowe had been cast as the male lead the box office would have been significantly higher (not that I'm a fan of his either...but I know a lot of men who like him).

[phinney]

Hugh Jackman is not so-so in this movie, he's smokin'. And Russell Crowe looks like he is 10 months pregnant.

[sjones66]

Actually, Nicole was a brilliant comedienne in To Die For, a black comedy, so I don't agree with a below poster who said she wasn't a good comedic actress.

It's true that Hollywood has very diff standards for men and women and the pay scale reflects the good old boy network that still exists.

Julia Roberts broke through the ceiling and others have followed.

The real question to ask is exactly how do they determine BO worth? I have always found this amusing, because the marketing people are now running the movies. They come up with a number which reflects the BO of each star, and that number goes to the studio heads -- as if the numbers from the past mean anything about tomorrow. As if they're remaking the same movie for the same audience...oh, wait...

Ha ha.

Anyhow, the numbers aren't very scientific and certainly can not predict the future. More craziness from a fear-based industry.

[BerryFan]

There is a group that mods the " Likeability" of a celeb. And that info with the past BO history goes into a actor's "worth" as a money maker.

[BerryFan]

Good job on this. I'm happy someones pointing out the sexism thats going on here. The men get a free pass when their movies flop. And they get paid so much more then the women. Mark wahlberg's (Max Pain) flopped and no one said or taped a word about it. I could go on and on Swing Vote with Kevin C, Love Guru with Michael M, Leatherheads with Cooney, 88 Minutes with Al Pacino all were box office flops. And I would bet none of these "men" got less that 20million for these roles. No one ever talks about their box office flops. They get to go on and continue to make 20+ million per film. Without giving the movie investors a big return on their money. But soon as a woman is headlining a movie. People start counting every penny the movie makes vs her pay check.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

A completely valid point, but some flawed examples...

Max Payne cost $40 million and opened to $20 million. With total domestic, international, and DVD sales, it will be profitable for Fox. It's a lousy movie and he's a lousy actor, but that one is a hit. Kevin Costner's Swing Vote cost just $20 million, and he financed a big chunk of that himself. Mike Myers has been crucified as a result of Love Guru (he won't get big money unless he does Austin Powers 4), and 88 Minutes was a glorified tax write off that almost went straight to DVD.

The irony of course is that Kidman's alleged commercial flops (Bewitched, The Stepford Wives, Golden Compass) all opened north of $20 million. They were all much more expensive than Max Payne and all three collapsed over opening weekend, but actors are supposed to open films, not keep them in theaters. The problem is that Kidman's arty flops (Fur, Birth, etc) are equated with her mainstream films and thus judged as mainstream flops. The other problem with Kidman is that she stars in pictures that no one wants to see, and Kidman alone is not enough to bring them in. I'd argue that no one, with the exception of Will Smith, is a big enough star these days to open any movie regardless of how interesting the film looks without said big star.

Scott Mendelson

[BerryFan]

Thanks Scott.... youre right. I can't fight with the truth. The producers of "Stepford Wives" . May be a little POed about her holding out for more money. Only for the movie to go waaaay over budget and flop at the box office. Well, no one can stay on top forever. And that saying is more truer in Hollywood.

[devadasi]

I love Bette Davis....no one like her......best film actress by far.

[mcsey]

So Nicole Kidman can't open a movie. That's not an attack on her acting. That's just fact. Her movies have done crap box office over the last few years. Movie star has nothing to do with acting. It's about box office, and by those standards she isn't one even though she's considered one.

[Boop927]

Thank you Melissa. There has been a lot of bashing about Nicole Kidman lately, and I am really tired of it. She has a respected list of movies that she has done, and yes, she never got the credit when they were good. As for Australia, it is a beautiful movie, maybe not what everyone expected but Nicole and Hugh did their part.

As for quitting acting, do you blame her? Especially with all the bashing lately. She's better off staying home with her beautiful baby girl Sunday Rose and hunk of a husband, Keith Urban.

Well, Nicole, I am still one of your biggest fans. Heck with everyone else.

[Mslevantine]

I saw Australia and thought it was very entertaining. Her acting in the film certainly does not warrant a full scale attack on her acting skills.
It's not her best film for sure but she is one of the best actresses around. She has her own persona and I like that in her. She takes risks and we should respect her for that.

[Libbydoe]

I loved The Hours. I couldn't believe that was Nicole Kidman. Perhaps she just need roles with more depth.

[dahpunkster]

Uh I think you are being a bit harsh on her, I liked her in the batman movie. It was a small role, and she did what what she supposed to. Did you see her in Cold mountian ? Alot of actresses have made movie mistakes.
She is not a very good comedic actress is all.Neither was Betty Davis.