(Guest post by B.J. Bethel)
Rupert Everett, comically enough, is up in arms over some double standards when it comes to actresses on Hollywood’s A-list.
Everett took aim at Jennifer Aniston back in December for failing to attract movie-goers to theaters while maintaining the dream-like “A-List” status Everett himself desires.
Aniston can credit much of her success to her tabloid-told relationship with Brad Pitt, and a tendency to wear tight shirts, sans bra, on cold television sets while filming “Friends” a few years before internet porn began to draw away the wondering eyes of teenage boys.
While Everett took aim at Aniston, he could have easily targeted Anne Hathaway.
Hathaway has been the toast of Hollywood, and is much more of a critical darling than Aniston, whose act wore thin in syndication. Hathaway was rumored to be the lead villainess in Sam Raimi’s aborted “Spider-Man” sequel. Now, she’s snared the coveted Catwoman role in Christopher Nolan’s follow-up to “The Dark Knight.” This is all before she was given the reins to Oscar night.
Someone, somewhere, believes Hathaway makes money. I’m not sure who that is, but it isn’t movie viewers. This year’s Oscar telecast’s ratings sank, and her tag-team with James Franco was a flop. Landing a role in a Nolan Batman movie should signal her ascendancy, but that isn’t the case.
If there has been one weak link to the Nolan Batman films it has been the female casting. First there was Katie Holmes, who couldn’t convincingly look panicked after getting hit with “panic gas.” Then there was Maggie Gyllenhaal, who despite all her indie cred made Holmes appear to be Olivia de Havilland by comparison. Hathaway starred in director Edward Zwick’s “Love and Other Drugs” with her male doppelganger, Jake Gyllenhaal, which was released last November. To this date it has made $32 million, despite heavy marketing to the rom-com set. This is the genre where A-List actresses make their hay, but not for Hathaway.
Much is made over the lack of machismo in Hollywood, but so far no women have lined up to knock Sandra Bullock or Julia Roberts off their thrones as Hollywood queens of earnings. Both are head-long into their 40s. Hathaway is closing in on 30, but so far, the charisma, the magic – and more importantly – the box office receipts are not to be found.
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, I’ve already voiced here my complete dislike of Portman, Fox, Hathaway and some of the other one dimensional actresses we have now. At least Maggie Gylennhaal is pleasant in indies, something most can’t pull off. There is a great dearth in interesting young actresses, IMO. Maybe we’ll have a better crop coming up, what with Abigail Bresling, the Fanning sisters, and Hailey Stanfield.
There is something very “cool” (as in cold) and “hands off” about Hathaway I think. I thought she was well cast in Becoming Jane (and I guess The Princess Diaries), but there is something slightly awkward about her in more recent and modern roles. I have female friends who loathe her and refuse to see her movies. Maybe she will surprise us as Catwoman (on paper it seems like a horrid choice to me); if not she might need to stick to more historical fare.
When you see what Nolan can do to actors like Ledger, Oldman, and Neeson I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and look forward to what he might do. I’ll keep an open mind but ditto, not sure about that.
As far as Aniston is concerned, what’s the appeal? She’s basically a one note actress, with a couple of indie films but not real broad range. Yeah, she’s hot but so what? She’s basically the same character in all films and not in a good way, (i.e Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson). Which isn’t really fair to her, I know, but I’d like to see her do some more indie films and see if she has range.
And Everett? I’d call that sour grapes. He’s good, but he comes across as so arrogant that you’d rather just punch him in the face. He played Sherlock Holmes in a PBS movie a few years ago that was pretty good, but that’s about it.
Glad to hear I’m not the only one who doesn’t get the love for Hathaway. She projects a certain smugness and I’ve found her unsympathetic in every movie of hers I’ve seen except Becoming Jane. She even had me rooting for Meryl Streep in ‘Devil Wears Prada’, and I couldn’t sit through all of ‘Rachel Getting Married’. The one time this worked to here advantage was in ‘Havoc’.