Terrible Casting...

[deleted]

Angelica Huston is a beautiful woman, she just isn't all big teeth, puffy lips and big, blond hair like every second American actress.

But you ARE Blanche ... and I AM.

From the little I've seen of it so far (it's on now and I missed the first hour.[watching it due to boredom and plan on watching in entirety eventually]), I totally agree with mjtsmm2027. Everything you say, word for word is exactly how I feel about it. Huston is extraordinary and everytime Bening and Cusack are onscreen, I keep thinking of who could have done it better.

Ha! Think of Bening in the scene where she is playing 'the roper' for her former boss, and the other scene where she 'runs the gangplank' or whatever she calls it. You call that lightweight? What planet are you on? Maybe you are confusing her skinnyness with her acting??

Cusack played it just right. Understated, believable. Huston was fine too, another one I REALLY enjoy her in is Ever After. Yes, its a Cinderella Story, a kids film, but the writing is absolutely brilliant and Huston does Wicked & Classy all at the same time! She is truly amazing!

Absolutely agree. Cusack was miscast and not anywhere in same league as the rest of the cast. I didn't believe him in this role for one single second. He was the weak link in the cast.

[deleted]

great post, lots of insight. All this from just watching or do you / did you study film somewhere?

Huston is the best of the three. No other actor approaches material quite like Anjelica.

Before she was an actress, Anjelica was a Ford model. While not beautiful in the conventional sense, she was and still is a knockout. I also think she gave the best performance in the film.

Bening was a close second with her winning, coquettish approach.

Cusack was the weak link for me.

Yes, it is on DVD.

The original poster probably doesn't even have taste in his mouth. Anjelica Huston's performance is legendary, one of the greatest noir turns given by an actress--matched only by Barbara Stanwyck's Phyllis Dietrichson. Who else could've delivered the line, "My son's going to be alright. If not, I'll have you killed" with such total believability? The last scene with Cusack, in particular, could be shown in acting classes with the introduction "This is how you play an objective."

Huston's Lily is breathtaking, perfection. Her casting couldn't have been better.

to cookiela (I know this is awfully late, but I just read your post so I'm responding anyway) -
I realize that the process you describe is standard casting procedure...but it's not the only way things are ever done. Is it not possible that SOME directors and/or writers seek specific actors for their roles? That happens all the time.

And I didn't think I implied that the decision to cast Huston was because it would be "COOL!". Your comment is very dismissive and doesn't seem to take into account anything I was saying. You may find this unbelievable, but sometimes actors ARE, in part, cast because of what an audience may associate them with, based on all kinds of things, such as past roles or (yes!) even personal background. It's very similar to Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan being cast together in You've Got Mail because of how successful Sleepless in Seattle was - the casting directors knew that audiences would enjoy seeing them paired together again and would automatically associate You've Got Mail with the previous film because they were cast together. What I was suggesting was the same concept, just much less blatant. A better example - Janet Leigh makes some appearance in what seems like the 20th Halloween sequel. Her presence is not only meant to reference Psycho, but is kind of like an in-joke to those who know that she's Jamie Lee Curtis's mom. Speaking of...do you think casting Jamie Lee Curtis in the original Halloween had nothing whatsoever to do with who her mother is and what she represents? Carpenter established Halloween as a horror film from the beginning by casting Leigh's daughter in the main role - whether audiences at the time recognized it or not. Just because the things I said about John Huston aren't as well known as these examples doesn't make it any less possible that they were taken into account when casting Anjelica Huston.

I realize that the film industry is money-driven, but can't you give SOME filmmakers a bit more credit than that? I think that a lot of filmmakers probably put a bit more thought into their casting decisions than you seem to insinuate. And besides, I never said that Anjelica Huston was definitely cast only for those reasons. I'm certainly not even trying to say that she was cast for those reasons at all. But in my opinion, it seems to make sense as a possibility, and I more wanted to see if other people thought about that as well. I don't believe either one of us can say definitively one way or another, so why try so harshly to disprove my suggestion?

I didn't mean to sound defensive...I was just quite confused and perhaps thought you were making fun of me. Perhaps I came off as defensive because I was trying not to come off as stupid, and also because I really didn't understand what you were trying to do exactly, I genuinely didn't know how to go about responding. Your humor is appreciated.

To Cookie and Wartime...

Thank you for that disputacious dialogue . . . it completely took my mind off its prior concern, about how many people think this Grifters film is awesome, while I thought it was Awful. You made it worth my time to read these responses.

I'd love to see what you could do with Sunset Boulevard.