Margot Robbie

Always have to bring up "I, Tanya" in these Robbie threads. Brilliance!

Hmm, maybe I have an unfair impression of her. I must confess I have not seen these films, although these are the sorts of roles she would be well-advised to take.

That's setting the bar fairly low, isn't it? Gene Hackman is a hotter version of Meryl Streep.

__________________
"If it was priggish for an older generation of reviewers to be ashamed of what they enjoyed and to feel they had to be contemptuous of popular entertainment, it's even more priggish for a new movie generation to be so proud of what they enjoy that they use their education to try to place trash within the acceptable academic tradition." -- Pauline Kael

LOL! Yes!

Hackman is awesome.

(And one of my favorite to imitate... "Oppenheimer funds... the right way to invest!")

But that's how you know she can act. And she was young, once upon a time.

I see you live in Florida. How do you know so much about New Jersey accents? That’s a very strong accent (think Tony Soprano) & I can’t imagine that’s what Robbie is seeking.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Went to a pub quiz last night - one of the rounds was:

Name the 10 highest grossing Margot Robbie films! I think I got 1.

Which was … Barbie? That’s the only one I can think of. She’s been in 10 high-grossing movies?

Because most everyone in Florida is not from Florida. You can't even hear the Tampa Bay Rays fans over the Boston & New York fans at home games.


And I stand corrected. I looked again on YouTube for an interview just to see if I was wrong, and am. She does sound like an aussie here.

Some have argued that she is box office poison.

She needed a hit in Barbie. And it appears she has it.

The phenomenon that the poster notes is real, actresses aging out of roles, but I feel like the ones that are able to overcome that have two things: first, genuine acting talent and second, versatility. There are many actresses that are largely famous for their beauty, or their charisma, and once they get older, they do unfortunately lose the ability to portray those types of roles. However, if they are able to lean on their genuine talent and an ability to play different types of roles as their career evolves, they can still succeed, even in Hollywood, which is quite unfair in many cases to women who get older. The question here is, which category does Margot Robbie fall into? Is her beauty her main asset, or does she have beauty as well as genuine acting talent? Also, how versatile is she? Can she play a variety of different types of roles, and has she been successful in doing so, or is she largely good in roles which emphasize her beauty? I think she might be the type of actress that has both (she already has two acting Oscar nominations), and actresses like that have a higher likelihood of succeeding long-term than actresses that don't. It's too early to tell, but I'd lean towards her having a long-term career. She may not be as big a star as she is now, but I'm not sure we can predict that at this point, and even if she's not, she can still have a successful career making movies, in my opinion.

When I lived in New York I had a friend from Brooklyn. She was so excited one time to vacation in Florida with her girlfriends. But turned out all the people in the bars & clubs were from Brooklyn. She was very let down.

Her interview is fun. She seems like a nice lady. With a VERY FAINT Aussie accent. There’s loads of Aussie actors around & they rarely have an accent. Seems like they lose it easily & I often find out later than an actor is from Oz. Very impressed by how many good actors there are from Oz.

I think her problem is that she shines so brightly in terms of conventional beauty. As Nora Ephron put the line in When Harry Met Sally, “What did she look like?” “Thin. Pretty. Big t!ts. Your basic nightmare.” She's not really distinctive so much as straight ahead "blonde bombshell."


Actresses sometimes benefit from a bit of Feng Shui in their facial features. Julia Roberts, for example, had huge eyes and a large jaw. Jennifer Grey immediately disappeared when she changed the feature that made her imperfectly beautiful, her nose. Robbie, on the other hand, is kind "Barbie." She's got that Valley of the Dolls look to her and I don't mean that as in insult. Consider those CGI images that averaged what faces look like by ethnicity/race. When you average out idiosyncratic features, the human face is quite beautiful.





She isn't just average. She is outstandingly average. Stunning, but not as distinctive as say, Penelope Cruz or Minnie Driver.



If producers and casting directors come to see her as more than a pretty face, she can make it, but there are prejudices for and against beauty.

You didn't see Babylon which I don't think anyone walked out of that film and blamed Robbie or Pitt for the films failures. Both could have gotten Oscars for their performances and really the bloated runtime came from inserting diversity characters and plotlines. Not saying their is anything wrong with a "diverse" cast but it messed with the tone and the watered down stories were very jarring compared to the quality work from Pitt and Robbie.



Amsterdam was a David O Russel failure that guy has been cancelled

The one I got was Wolf of Wall Street. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was up there. Don't think I had seen the rest, they were I Tonya, Peter Rabbit, Tarzan, The Big Short and some Marvel films.

As someone who has followed her career since she left Neighbours but not seen any of the films, I find it odd/interesting to see people question her ability because it was obvious (as was her charisma and screen presence) from the moment she started on Neighbours. Quite a few actors/actresses have gone on from Neighbours to have very successful careers and I can't think of anyone who was more obviously 'going to make it' than Margot. Gorgeous as she is, I think to see her as a JAB is missing the main reason she's as big as she is. It's her personality and talent, coupled with her stunning looks, which has made her the star she is today and, because of that, I'd expect that to continue. After all, Nicole Kidman was seen as box office poison and she's still going strong and considered by the mainstream as a much better actress than I think she is.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

What a curious graphic. Why is 'England' there? Would be interesting to see how a comparative image would compare with Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Although the image slightly feels like it's objectifying women.

Gads no!



The algorithm was averaging photos of women and women tend to wear make up, so the images would presumably show the average "self-objectification" which is layered on top of natural beauty.

Here are some men.



Nature made us to be objectified, both men and women.


Nature wants babies. That's what keeps the game of life going.


Natural selection has evolved species to seek out signs of health in possible mates. These signs elicit feeling of sexual attraction. And this results in other humans being perceived as "sex objects." A strong positive sexual attraction is created by showing signs of health (e.g., clear skin, symmetrical development along the bilateral axis, hip index ratio, full hair). These women and men are showing sign of health, and therefore sexual fitness, and therefore sexual objectification.


I remember when I used to be insulted when people would "card" me in my twenties and early thirties when I ordered a drink. The real insult came when they stopped carding me, when the world agreed "You're definitely not young." Likewise the greater insult to objectification is often that day when no one takes any sexual interest in you anymore, when that stamp of fitness fades so much that no one see you as an object of desire. Nature is cruel, but she wants healthy babies and "surprise" the average is pretty good looking in the years of their sexual health.


Paradoxically, ugliness is just a case of straying too far from the golden mean which is average. Hurrah for the average person! Turns out the exceptional Hogwarts are the ugly ones!

I think if we've started using the phrase "natural selection" we're pretty far afield. It's not too difficult to discuss talent vs. looks without it turning into an anthropology class.

Again, I'm asking people to make the distinction between what's necessary to discuss a topic and what's not. The fact that something is a natural continuation of some particular branch of the discussion is not the same thing as it really being on topic.