Gena Rowlands’ introduction speech to Angelina Jolie’s receiving of the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award at the 2013 Governors Awards. Jolie was one of three recipients, and unfortunately, they separated out these awards from the actual Oscar ceremony, a mistake, I think. But let’s not focus on that. Gena Rowlands is my favorite actress. I am so happy that Criterion asked me to write something about her for their upcoming release of Love Streams. I had no idea that she and Jolie were friends, and when this clip surfaced, I watched it avidly like some sort of forensic psychologist. Gena has that effect on me. How perfect that they are friends. It makes no sense, it makes perfect sense. Gena Rowlands’ speech is old school, with the glass of wine on the podium. Her glamorous hair and nails, her glasses, her lipstick. She always looks fabulous. And I love that she always, always, no matter the occasion, has her own sense of timing. She speaks with her own rhythm, always.
And I think my favorite line in her speech is:
“And she has to keep that smile on Brad’s face …”
Old-fashioned. And true. I love the delighted laughs from Pitt and Jolie at the comment.
And just in case you didn’t see Jolie’s speech, it’s a doozy.
In regards to Maleficent:
[SPOILERS TO FOLLOW]
Early in the film, Maleficent is betrayed by her childhood friend and first love. In order to become King, he knows that Maleficent must die. So one night, when they’re sitting by the stream, peaceful and happy, he feeds her poison that knocks her out. While she is asleep, he cuts her beautiful huge wings off, and brings them back as a trophy to show he has done the deed. Later, much later, she awakes. She is not sure what happened. She doesn’t know she has been drugged. But slowly, with dawning horror, she realizes/senses that something is different. As she sits up, she feels the lack, the absence. She crooks her head over her shoulder to glance at her back, and we see the stumps jutting out of her back where her wings used to be. What then happens is a cry of pain and anguish so piercing, and so real and agonized, that I recoiled from it, almost physically. She screamed out her loss, and her terror, and the moment went on … and on … and it was, frankly, unbearable. I never recovered. That wound haunted the rest of the film. There is all kinds of resonance there, all kinds of associations, with the casual brutalization of women’s bodies, and her cry of pain echoes all of that. I don’t believe in assigning biographical meaning to fictional roles: it is a huge pet peeve of mine in much writing about actors. “He was abandoned by his mother – therefore all of his roles explore that.” Please. Acting is make-believe. Much of it comes from the imagination. Learn a little bit about the craft of acting before you spout off. However, it is certainly true that we, in the audience, bring knowledge to the theatre – that’s part of how we respond to stars (sometimes it works in the actor’s favor – other times, like with people wrapped up in tabloid nonsense, it is a detriment – we can’t dissociate ourselves from the tabloid stories.) But Jolie screaming and crying, in a manner so real it’s almost amazing that the moment made it into the movie, it’s that upsetting, made me think of her double mastectomy. I mean, it’s impossible to not think of it. I didn’t think of her real-life surgery DURING the moment, because what was going on with her onscreen was far too all-encompassing for me to think much of anything. But afterwards, when I couldn’t get the moment out of my mind, I thought about it. I want to be clear that I am not assuming she “drew on” that experience in creating the role, or any such malarkey. I have no idea. She’s an actress. She uses her imagination and her empathy and Stanislavski’s “magic if”, whatever you want to call it, to do what she has to do in any given part. But it was a powerful moment on multiple shifting levels, and it is something she obviously would be at least aware of.
Fairy tales are specific and yet universal. And Jolie’s moment there was both specific and universal. It was specifically itself (Maleficent wailing out the loss of her wings, as well as the betrayal of someone she trusted), and it was also operating on that universal plain (This is what happens. This is what we fear. This is what is out there.) Very few actors today can maneuver fearlessly and easily on that plain of both specificity and universality. Back in the day, the Golden Age day, actors were more comfortable in that realm, at least the great ones were. Stories were written tailored to their respective personae. The John Waynes and Katharine Hepburns and Jimmy Cagneys and Barbara Stanwycks. It’s the ability to be both totally alive in the moment and also totally aware of the archetypes/icons/images you are bringing to each role, and how your persona fits into that. It is a consciousness of who you are, and that is just not the style of acting anymore. The style of acting today, the work that gets most congratulated, has to do with transformation and being different from role to role. Jolie is not about that. And she’s smart to resist the trend.
Angelina Jolie has always reminded me a little bit of Joan Crawford in that respect, and that is a total compliment.
Like Crawford, she manages her career and her image like a pro. Like Crawford, she understands her persona to such an intimate degree that her choice of roles has rarely been “off”. There are a couple of misses, but in general, Jolie is on top of her own material. She doesn’t work a lot. So many of these young actresses today work too damn much. I get the anxiety of why they do that, and I understand the impulse, and, granted, very few of them have the weirdo wattage that Jolie does. Jolie is very careful about what she appears in, just like Crawford was (in her heyday, that is), and also understands who she is. I’m not talking about her personal life. I don’t care about that stuff, and it’s part of her genius that I don’t care. All I care about is the work. Who are you as an actress? How do you work? How do you use your work to express yourself?
Maleficent is not a perfect film, and I didn’t like what they did to the actual story of Maleficent (meaning, how they wrapped it up). But the middle section of the film, after that horrifying moment of awakening without wings, when she descends into bitterness, rage, and then comes to understand and embrace her own evil, is fascinating. Entertaining. Every move, every gesture, every flicker of the eye, is both planned and organic. (Not to be tried by amateurs.) It is a highly choreographed performance and yet feels completely conscious and alive. She has this way of making little sniffing sounds of disdain or a little “hm” to herself when she sees something interesting, or annoying, or a situation that she could manipulate. She slits her translucent bright green eyes, assesses it all, and murmurs to herself, “Hm,” none of her features moving. This is extremely intricate work. This is an actress in TOTAL control of the effects she wants, and yet the performance still is not mannered, artificial. How do you be in control without seeming like you are in control? Again, amateurs shouldn’t even attempt it.
To quote Sean Connery on playing James Bond, “It is a role for a professional.”
Indeed. She kills it.
I love this; I hadn’t read anything by you about Jolie before, and of course, I was richly rewarded. I love how to write about actors. Delicious stuff.
Aww, thank you! I have a lot of feelings about Angelina Jolie, obviously – but it turns out I’ve never written about her before. Weird. She is so good in this, deliciously good.
I can’t get enough of Jolie. She is the only star where it works like that for me. Not music, not film or tv. She is the only person whose face will get me to pick up a gossip mag, even if I subsequently reject it because the pictures or fable are not flattering enough (I want to believe). The is the one I troll tomandlorenzo.com for. She is the only star whose children I feel more than indifference to. Brad is a great actor — he is in better movies — he has several all-time classics to his name — in terms of star power, he is ancillary and he seems to know it which I love.
I mean controlled but organic, that’s the watchword for her publicly personal life too, right? That speech, obviously written and practised — it still makes me cry every time. I enjoy it when you contextualise her in terms of classic stars because I don’t really have a concept for her except the word star. She’s a genius. She’s out of this world. Love her.
Jessie – love your thoughts!
// in terms of star power, he is ancillary and he seems to know it which I love. //
YES. She told a great story about writing the script for her film In the Land of Blood and Honey – how she had been talking about it to him for a couple of years, telling him her ideas, “Maybe I should start it this way” or “maybe it would be better to put the climactic moment here, I don’t know …” until finally he had had enough and said, basically, “I don’t want to hear any more about it. Start writing it. NOW.” hahaha And she meekly obeyed and took herself to the attic in their freakin’ mansion, in France or wherever, and wrote the first treatment of the script in about 3 days. But I loved that anecdote – very revealing – two artists just working it out. And he’s supportive of her, but he sensed she was spinning her wheels and was like, “Get crackin’, sister, show me some pages.”
I also have a whole theory about how his career exploded in a much more interesting way once he took up with her, in that fiery blaze of tabloid glory. Something in her has set HIM free – and he has alluded to it. He used to ‘stack’ projects up, so that he would be booked years in advance. Now he wings it a little bit more. It has totally served him.
ANYWAY. This is a side issue.
I, too, am fascinated by her – by her persona, and by how she uses it in film AND in public life. She is a genius about it. She has the wattage of a Crawford, or a Hepburn – it’s very very old-school what she’s doing. And, just like those tough dames of the past, she backs it up with excellent work. She clearly cares deeply. Maleficent is a very specific performance, totally thought out. But also organic, the sudden flashes of agony coming across her cold evil face … It’s really amazing. Powerful.
Yup – a star.
And that speech. My God.
That’s a great story! I am despite all my attempts to the contrary deeply invested in their relationship. Really looking forward to seeing Maleficent, doing my best to divorce it from the original as it seems it borrows without quite being an homage or remix, and its a retelling without really telling the story. Which I am happy about because I want to be able to watch without my overweening love for the original suppressing its good qualities!
Unfortunately, in my opinion – and will be curious to hear your reaction – they mess with the story in the final third of the film. It’s a bit of a betrayal of the character and what she means. BUT the middle section – from wing-clip to evil acting-out – is superb.
Her sotto voce ‘hm’s were so great. Spontaneous? Or planned? Either way, super cool.
The key to her genius is that it is both spontaneous AND planned.
Loved the “Hm”s!!
I just got back from Maleficent and I was completely captivated. I have to say that as the hours pass, I can understand why you and others didn’t like the last third. I can understand that, and I could guess what was going to happen just before it did, but I was so carried along that it didn’t take me out of the movie, the way, say, abandoning David/Haley Joel Osment took me out of A.I. Maybe I’m shallow, but I loved it from beginning to end. Perhaps I had been primed for some sort of bigger let down.
Angelina Jolie in wings and horns, bursting through the clouds with the sun behind her – isn’t imagination a wonderful thing!
And if Dante had known of Steffan he would have given Satan four mouths to chew betrayers forever.
// Angelina Jolie in wings and horns, bursting through the clouds with the sun behind her //
Oh God, that scene was glorious!!
I also could see where it was going, and that she would be redeemed by loving the child she had tried to destroy. I know. It’s Disney. I knew they would have to “redeem” this great villainous character, but it was a shame when she had to let go of the bad-ness. :) Her villainy was so powerful, so free, not domesticated at all.
Jolie played it all GREAT, though. How about the moment with her own real-life daughter? So funny. Imagine being a 3 year old and seeing your mom in that costume. Ha.
Steffan was AWFUL!
The final battle made me think of the line from Nirvana’s “Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle” –
“come back as fire and burn all the liars.”
Awesome. YES. Revenge!!
That was her daughter? How wonderful!
You know, I interpreted her return at the end (I know, Disney) as giving up on the hatred, on the creation of minions, on Command and Control – and returning to what was good about The Moors as Aurora described it in the beginning of the movie. The faery folk didn’t need a ruler, even if they did need a battlefield commander.
I thought her path in the middle – getting to love Aurora and wanting to spare her from the curse – earned the ending. Maybe I’m a sucker for happy endings.
No shame in likng happy endings! I do think her change was motivated by all that you say. I just missed her villainy and what it did to the original story.
But she was amazing throughout.
And yes! The little girl going “up! Up!” was one of her real daughters. So cute and funny !
As an aunt I also loved the relationship she created with Aurora. Fanning was so touching I thought!
I know, the Fannings. Will they the become new Barrymores?
Elle just rocked Super 8 – she was breathtaking.
Loved Super 8!!
Yoda speak like do I.
Beautiful piece Sheila. I love that they are friends and I love Angelina. One of those people that makes the world exciting.
Sheila Loved your writing on Jolie! I just saw Maleficent. And I didn’t connect at all her double mastectomy during or after the film, until I read your post, now it seems almost strange I didn’t! I just believed her, I believed everything Jolie did. I did flash on something in her real life. I somehow remembered a story she told about adopting her first child. She said she was very nervous and started thinking, she would be a terrible mother, children don’t like her, etc, and when they brought him to her to hold for the first time, they placed him in her arms, he opened his eyes, looked at her, and he just laughed, it felt like they knew each other, she said. I remembered this story watching Maleficent and did think of it, and thought she had a lot to say about what when in this movie. I did like all those soft noises and gestures she did, but I did flash on Meryl Streep in The Devil wears Prada, talking soft instead of yelling and wondered if the movie stole that, but that doesn’t take away that Jolie did it well.
I agree she is that old-school movie star type. But Crawford, though I love her, freaks me out in most of her movies! haha! except for when she’s very young, like this picture you put up. Crawford also seemed very hard to me and weird in real life, Jolie seems soft in her real life, though she can play these badasses so well. I’ll go with Hepburn! (though she was kind of freaky too! I get the feeling, in real life)
I loved Jolie as Maleficent. I loved the first part of the movie. Yes, all that stuff about her wings, and flying, freedom, then her wings being stripped away, isn’t that true and like life when the one thing you love above all is stripped away and you gotta figure life out and go on. Maleficent changing, dealing with her anger too. Everything Jolie did, in fact. But everybody else was so so awful! I didn’t read any reviews and somehow skipped who the young girl was and I kept thinking, “where did they get such a bland young woman?” Also the same for the King and the guy who played the bird. I was bored with everyone except Jolie, (and her real life daughter, very sweet)
I remembered watching Jolie with my daughter when they were both very young for the first time in that film, Foxfire, thinking, wow! who is this girl? I believed, finally, that this actress is really tough, and she’s representing people I know, who you don’t get to see in movies, but she’s still playing the bad girl it in a totally originally way. We are fans ever since!
// I did like all those soft noises and gestures she did, but I did flash on Meryl Streep in The Devil wears Prada, talking soft instead of yelling and wondered if the movie stole that, but that doesn’t take away that Jolie did it well. //
Yes! Definitely the Meryl Streep connection – it had that total slow buried burn to it, which made it so funny but also quite scary.
I love the story you relate about Jolie adopting her first child. Very moving! I think that this was an extremely personal character for her!
And in re: the King. I agree: BOO. My friend and I came out of the movie and were like, “Who the hell was that guy? He was terrible.” DEFINITELY not a match for Jolie onscreen – very strange casting, I thought, don’t you? I didn’t get it at all.
// I believed, finally, that this actress is really tough, and she’s representing people I know, who you don’t get to see in movies, but she’s still playing the bad girl it in a totally originally way. We are fans ever since! //
I love that. I agree that she is original – and yet also connected to those archetypes – the Ida Lupino-type, the Barbara Stanwyck-type – I don’t know – those tough dames who can also access those softer emotions.
Jolie is amazing – so glad you saw it!
I just saw Maleficent today and enjoyed the hell out of it. I can see why people wouldn’t like the final third of the film, but like mutecypher it felt earned for me. Formulaic, sure, but fairytales tend to be. And I loved what they did with the true love’s kiss.
What I loved best about it is that it’s such a woman’s movie – like that’s the entire audience they’re going for. Women and little girls. The handsome prince literally doesn’t matter. It’s a woman’s picture, to acknowledge your Joan Crawford connection, as Joan was the queen of them.
Jolie is the only one who could have played this role – it’s a role for a megawatt movie star of her calibre. Her control over her expressions and gestures is incredible – she knows exactly how to use the camera. She could find her light in a dark closet. She does well in these slightly old-fashioned roles because she’s not really a kitchen-sink realism kind of actor. Her personality/looks are just Too Much for that. And obviously your eye is always drawn to her when she is onscreen – so why not acknowedge that, right?
It is weird that they cast such a charisma void for Stefan. I have trouble believing that any version of Angelina Jolie could be in love with that guy. Maybe he was so rodent-y on purpose? During the scene where he takes her wings from her – I actually thought of date rape. He knocks her out and then does something terrible to her. I wonder if that was deliberate subtext.
Mostly this is a movie about Angelina Jolie’s face. I’d have been happy just to watch her run around in that amazing costume shooting star power out of her pores, so I admit my standards might be low.
// I’d have been happy just to watch her run around in that amazing costume shooting star power out of her pores, so I admit my standards might be low. //
hahahaha I know!! I love what you said: “She could find her light in a dark closet.” Yes!!
I find her absolutely exhilarating to watch.
And I agree that the movie was really about the relationship between women and girls – she wasn’t “redeemed” by a man, thank GOD.
Jolie recently gave an interview where she said that they very consciously wanted rape to be the subtext of that horrible scene. Let me see if I can find it.
Here’s Jolie’s statement:
http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/angelina-jolie-maleficent-rape