Margot Robbie

I agree with you that there are benefits and drawbacks to beauty in Hollywood, but this is a different argument than the original poster made, and that you yourself made. The original poster called her adorable and you said she had "ethereal beauty," which seemed to indicate that she lacked other kinds of qualities beyond her looks. I countered that I thought she had both natural beauty as well as genuine talent and versatility, which I thought were factors that might allow her to have longevity. Now, you are saying it's not just that she's beautiful, but that she doesn't have the right kind of beauty, and that her beauty is not "distinctive". Does this mean that you are conceding that Margot Robbie may actually have other qualities beyond her beauty, like natural talent, for example and/or versatility, and are therefore seeking to use other grounds to substantiate your argument?

I can't speak for Amsterdam, and while I never saw the Harley Quinn movies, being a teen when Batman: That Animated Series debuted, where Harley was created*, that character always had a cartoonish-New Jersey accent in the cartoon.


*: I believe she was one of the characters created in the cartoon that was them introduced into the comics.

Segueing back to something more on topic: my wife and I talk sometimes about different kinds of attractiveness, about how people can be attractive in a very generic or forgettable sense. And, on the flip side, how someone can not be conventionally attractive, but look very interesting, which in turn some people find very alluring (and/or attractive). Adrien Brody is usually the first person I think of when I think about this concept. And I find the idiosyncrasies of what I find attractive matter more and more relative to conventional beauty with each passing year.

There are definitely lots of celebrities I recognize are objectively attractive, but who I'd have trouble picking out of a lot of their contemporaries. I suppose if I saw them in person the effect might be stronger, but from the remove of a screen, it just gets a shrug. I think the sheer size and scope of the industry has probably had the effect of making even great beauty mundane.

Personally I find Robbie to be fairly interesting looking and not really in the "attractive in a totally boring way" sense. But even if she is conventionally/boringly pretty, that sure seems like it would fit this particular character, anyway.

OK
Is it?
Right, that is a good word for it, I think--"Extremely light or delicate.
Of the celestial spheres; heavenly." Her beauty is "ethereal" in the sense that it seems to touch on an ideal form of beauty (that golden mean of beauty not informed by Plato, but by natural selection). She is a Goddess in the sense of being that to which so many aspire (hence the Nora Ephron quotation about "your basic nightmare"). But therein lies the danger--what is more common than the idea of a perfect blonde? And Hollywood has no lack of conventionally perfect blonde goddesses waiting to get their crack at the big screen.

Her beauty is also "delicate" in the sense that it is so fine as to be transitory/ephemeral (e.g., "Take a picture, it will last longer"), which fits the other sense of the definition of "ethereal."
The "seemed" does not follow here. That I only commented there about her quality of beauty does not say anything about qualities that she may possess or lack.

Elsewhere, I have argued that the problem with her conventional beauty (lacking the stamp of individuality) is so great that it may outshine and obscure her other qualities, whatever those qualities may be (or not be). That is, I am not arguing that "she's just a pretty face," but rather that when people see her, she is competing with her own good looks (poor thing) so as to display her other qualities. Thus, I noted how Brad Pitt leaned into ugly for a decade to kick the "pretty boy" image associated with him.
And I have granted in this thread that she might have that longevity and that she may have already displayed her true chops in her existing body of work. I am not as familiar with her oeuvre as are others.

I have not, for example, seen I Tanya or Mary Queen of Scotts. Rather, I have seen Harley Quinn's posterior in short-shorts and Margot naked in a bubble batch explaining how financial markets work in The Big Short, and the object of Jordan Belfort's attraction in The Wolf of Wall Street. And now I see that she has literally appeared as "Barbie" in a comedy.
On the contrary, I am clarifying.

I am saying that the ideal of the average, that beauty which lacks the memorable flaw, is paradoxically forgettable. When the bloom leaves the rose, so too does the essential flavor which seemed to inhabit it. When Jennifer Grey lost her nose, she gained in conventional beauty, but also became just another face in the crowd. And what happened to her career after the nose job? It is better to age with a distinctive look if you are in the business that needs recognition and familiarity.
I don't believe that I ever expressly denied this. Moreover, I have already conceded that I may have missed her taking the very sort of roles I have said I think she should take and that she may have already, thereby, demonstrated her other talents, by leaning against type (i.e., a pretty face). There is nothing for me to concede here, because I have never said it or already conceded it.
What do you think "my argument" is? What do you think I am trying to prove?

In your other post, you say you concede that she may have other qualities, but from this statement, it appears to me that you were saying that she didn't, and comparing her to a random woman from Disney+ further reinforces that point. I interpreted this to be a pretty dismissive statement that isn't factoring in appropriately other attributes that she may have that may distinguish her from the kind of flash in the pan actress that you seemed to indicate you thought that she was, or would be. I think it is possible that you may have a more nuanced opinion about Robbie, but statements like this don't effectively convey that, in my opinion. They actually communicate the opposite.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Actually they both have had 15 years in film. M.R. is 33, M.M. was 36 at the time of her death. Had Marilyn lived she would have been active at least another 10 years in sexy roles. I'd expect the same for Margot.

Yes, my initial appraisal was that her crystal is close to turning and it's time for carousel. Other posters chimed in and claimed that she has done good work in precisely the sort of roles that I said I would hope to see her take. I made concessions to their assertions, as it was clear that they were more familiar with her oeuvre than I.

Did you see the part where I said this?
I think you should have, because you charged me with shifting my ground on the question of her beauty, indicating that you've been following along my posts. But now I find that you're dismissing or ignorant of the above concession.

At any rate, my opinion about her beauty has not changed.

With regard to my assessment of her talent, I have made concessions to those more familiar to her work to say, "I don't know."

And so, and again, Yes, my original statement is indeed dismissive. What I have sampled , so far suggests "Jaime Pressly's younger sister." But again, I have conceded that this assessment may be hasty given that her advocates have a larger sample size (and of work which would reflect her true chops, if she's got em). Again, I have conceded the point about the quality of her talent (I shall remain agnostic on the question until I see more of her more serious work), but I maintain the point about the nature/quality of her good looks.
I have seen about a half dozen of her movies. I have not seen her in "that" role yet.

And even if she has "other attributes" this may not mean that my own prediction is wrong, even though I have already conceded that she may have already demonstrated these attributes in works I have yet to sample.

The industry is littered with talented people who can no longer find work at the top of the pyramid. I have no parasocial relationship with her and I don't imagine that she reads these threads and I have no vested interest in her success or failure. My guess is that her good looks have helped get her this far, but also that her looks may also be a problem as it is easy to see a conventionally pretty person and think "another pretty face." That is, she could fail despite being talented because of the prejudice associated with good looks, especially certain conventional types of good looks (like "hot blonde").
Well, that's because I intended to communicate precisely that. My impression of her, at the time of writing that comment, was precisely what I said it was. If it sounded dismissive, it is because it was dismissive. Others insisted that I was wrong, so I have conceded that I may have made a hasty generalization.

Part of that nuance thing is having enough space for your opinions to evolve through the inter-influence of dialogue. Do I get to concede what I've already conceded? Am I supposed to delete the original comment or send Ms. Robbie an apology or something?

I think you've explained that you may have modified your opinion based on what you learned from others who may be more familiar with Robbie's career than you are, and that's fine with me. I also try to remain open to rethinking things when I learn new information. I think another factor in Robbie's favor is that she has set up her own production company, which could allow her to extend her career in two ways: one, developing films as she ages that fit her acting skills and talents well, and also, producing films that she doesn't star in that end up being successful. She has already started doing the latter, as she was a producer for "Promising Young Woman". You are of course free to continue to participate in this forum in any way you'd like, but in the future, this is how I'd handle something like this discussion, which I offer for your consideration.

I think if I were not that familiar with Robbie's career, I probably wouldn't have contributed to this thread, and if I did, I would have not expressed such strong opinions initially, since usually, when I express an opinion that is strongly held, I like it to be based off of a strong base of facts or evidence. If I still wanted to participate in this thread, I would have likely expressed a more tentative opinion that was more exploratory rather than which expressed a conclusion that Robbie was at the end of her career and likely wouldn't be able to succeed long-term. I think at this time, I'll bow out of this thread, as I think I've substantiated my point of view and why I think Robbie may be able to succeed long-term, and this claim really can only be definitively proven with time. We probably won't know for 15 years what Robbie's career trajectory ultimately ends up being.

Because.

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

This will be rich.

How familiar must one be? I have seen Pan Am, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Big Short, Suicide Squad, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Birds of Prey, and as much of Babylon as I could stand before I turned it off. Pray tell, how many more films would I need to watch to be "that familiar" such that I may make comments in a board that has hand full of active posters?

What I sampled has strongly suggested a mediocre talent. When one watches a half-dozen films by an actor and finds a meager talent, why would one feel obligated to watch even more? How many anchovies do I have to eat before I may express a strong opinion about them?

The level of avowed piety here is bordering on comical.

This is not a peer-reviewed journal or scientific inquiry. This is a small forum with posters who regular offer hot takes and casual opinions. That you're selectively outraged here is rather baffling. Are you the president of her fan club or something?

I hope everyone can now recognize the service I once provided in absorbing most of these walls of text myself. Because it's not like he's not going to find other people to bait into this bullshit. He's going to litter every thread he goes into with this nonsense that he's the aggrieved party and everyone else is just a pearl clutching hysteric. Pay no mind to the things he says to get people riled up in the first place.


Maybe, because I'm a prick, I afforded him a cover that he was only defending himself from a hostile poster. It's pretty easy to make me look like I'm the bad guy in the scenario when Mr Sanctimonious Gaslighter is going to work up there. He doesn't even swear or nothin'. He must be good folk.


But he's not. You don't have to read between the lines to realize what he is here to do. It might not be pure trolling, but it is one desperate attempt after another to rile up an argument so he can pummel people with his boring academia. Endless contrarianism to fluff his ego.


Great fun for all, I'm sure.

Mods can feel free to erase this, I get why you might, but personally, I think this post should be put as a caveat at the beginning of every thread here.

I'm getting excited to see Barbie. I am a big fan of the other movie that was produced by her production company, Lucky Chap Entertainment that she starred in I, Tonya. Barbie has good credentials. I was not a big fan of Greta Gerwig as a director but I might need to see Lady Bird again. Lady Bird and Little Women were not what I was expecting and I think that is my real problem with them. I am not always comfortable with movies from a young woman's perspective. As an old woman it is somewhat alien to me.

QFT (and also in case it does get erased)

I liked Lady Bird for what it was, but Little Women, also well made, pales in comparison to the 1994 version starring Winona Ryder. Gerwig's tinkering with structure and narrative flow only served to take away from the film, IMO. Point being, if you bounced off those films, it may just be because they aren't great films to begin with.

__________________

I saw Gerwig's Little Women in the theater with a group of friends and we all really enjoyed it. I grew up with the 1994 version and love it dearly, but I thought that Gerwig's version was really charming. I also thought that the way she handled Beth's subplot was absolutely fantastic and devastating.

Ladybird is good, but that's about all I could say.


Somehow, even though I lived with a Little Woman obsessive for twelve years, I've never seen one iteration of the movie, nor read the book. What it is is a complete mystery to me. I only assume there are women, and they are very very small.

As everyone knows, Little Women was an unlicensed sequel to Fantastic Planet. Hope that helps.

I assumed as much, but I didn't want to get cocky and blurt it out.


People get tired of me always being correct. Gotta be humble

Little Women may be the only Gerwig movie I bailed out of. So horrible.