Why has everyone been raving over Jane Fonda's performance but not a mention of Rachel Weisz? From what I could see Jane Fonda was only in two scenes so why is she the talk of the movie? Did I miss something?
Also, as a side note, it seemed as though Rachel Weisz wasn't even wearing any make up through the film, not even barely there make up - anyone else notice that? Though it was wonderfully refreshing
I think that Jane's appearance had a huge consequence for a 10 minutes appearance so maybe that's why people talk about her, plus, It's Jane Fonda, she has more movies and fame than most of the actors out there.
I prefer Rachel Weisz, and thought she was brilliant in that 3 minutes monologue and during the entire movie. You're not wrong, she wasn't wearing any make up (except during the dinner scenes) because lately her characters don't ask for it (The Lobster, Agora, The Whistleblower) and personally I think she looks really good without it, But her character didn't have a bad consequence like Fonda's. And I've heard that Fonda is a Diva in a sense of being a bit rude or "above you" and that's what her character was.
I think Jane's performance was powerful but also lacked something I can't put my finger on. She was not supposed to be a character who could display a lot of subtlety or nuance, and yet her performance felt, at times, "screechy" to me. Rachel was terrific in this-she, like Caine, never needs to "overact' to act, and I love this about both of them.
shareBeats me. I thought Weisz delivered a much more interesting performance. Not that there was anything wrong with what Fonda did, but in no way was it anything she deserves any awards for.
share