Flower Child wrote:... She has been pretty much associated with "period and costume" characters. She needs to leave all of that behind her and do more contemporary stuff like she just did in "Blood and Oil" and "Strike Back." The competition for good, meaty roles is extremely high and she just might turn to directing, in which I feel she would be excellent at. She just has that excellent eye for extreme detail and it is shown in every performance she has given. As a workaholic she won't spend time resting on her laurels and I predict she will exert some time behind the camera. She has worked and learned from many fine directors and she knows how to get things done the right way.
While I don't agree that JM should just dump period projects, I do agree that we will begin to see her direct more. Wasn't there an interview or an article just recently in which she actually talked about directing more? --Points to anyone who can find that reference.
And, I do like contemporary projects. I have enjoyed AMP, B&O, for example. And, I can see JM really shining in these type projects. I've also enjoyed the blatantly political aspect to many of her contemporary projects. (Or, all of them in fact... warriors= political, F&C= political I would say, b&o = definitely, AMP = definitely, strike back = definitely, etc) But I do think there are still great, strong parts from period pieces that JM can still perform. To think that all period projects have young heroines at their core is misleading, I would venture. I think it only takes into account a very limited sampling of period pieces too.
I've been thinking of
Rosa Luxemburg lately. Did anyone else see that film? With Barbara Sukowa? Now, there was a character. I would still love to see JM in a period piece like that. Or, I STILL want someone to develop a script about Hannah Arendt and want JM to be cast as the woman herself.
But oooh, I would love to see JM in a film about American labor history... or as a suffragette (UK or US).
I also think we might see her more and more on the stage. I've only seen her once on stage, and it was brilliant. I think it offers something real time to her that she can't get in films.
I am by no means a theatre scholar. But if I were to start seeing patterns in JM's theatre career, there would be a few things that stood out to me.
First would be a time line... she doesn't do them back to back. The last round saw 4 years in between while 2 years seems to be her average.
Another thing would be that she performed in classic (Checkov) pieces:
Platanov,
the Seagull. And contemporary classic:
Far Away.
But she's done 3 original projects:
Jerusalem Syndrome (I think it was original),
Blackbird and
Polar Bears. Now, that is half of her theatre work. I would love to see her do more original pieces. I think she can gauge whether something is quality and can really focus on originating a role. I think that's her strong suite.
I also think you see a glimmer of something very feminine in those pieces.
Polar Bears and
Blackbird have obviously strong female characters. I think Checkov wrote women kind of well too. I mean, there is some dimension there for his female characters.
Having read JS, I sense there is just some kind of intangible feminine feel to the piece. So much of that was an internal piece, I think.
And I don't understand
Far Away. I think any gender could perform those roles. No idea!
I'm just rambling here. Perhaps this feminine feel I am trying to sort out is simply gender based. it's just her characters, perhaps. I'd like to think of it as an emerging canon of female parts where she has evolved into the woman to be.
Seriously, I was just thinking aloud here and piecing things together. I know this doesn't have a lot of coherency. I find that an idea is revealed to me and then it might take many projects before I get a full handle on it. Something is emerging, I think.
Katy