(Note: the updates are additional comments that occurred to me on rereading this piece, as part of the text.)
My reaction to this story is to make a point of seeing any film that has Armie Hammer in the cast:
This, I think, tells you all you need to know about the article:
It's a hit piece, no more, no less, that goes to all sorts of places that have nothing to do with Hammer as an actor. The author really seems to resent the fact that Hammer comes from money (his grandfather was oil tycoon Armand Hammer) and keeps coming back to it, making the point over and over again that he's a "rich asshole," in spite of all the comments from people who actually know him that he's not.
Apparently, from some of the comments, it's intended to be a piece about white male power and privilege in Hollywood. What it is is a mean-spirited attack on one man. Frankly, if you want to do a piece on white male power and privilege in Hollywood, do a piece on white male power and privilege in Hollywood. It's not that hard to figure out. (The author, by the way, has a Ph.D. from the University of Texas and wrote her dissertation on the gossip industry. Maybe that explains why the "think piece" is so shallow.)
I've only seen Man From U.N.C.L.E., of Hammer's previous work, and he was more than adequate as Ilya Kuriakin. Not brilliant, maybe, but good. To blame the movie's failure on casting Hammer and Henry Cavill (whom she characterizes as "a junior-varsity Tom Cruise") as the leads, rather than a script that simply wasn't up to snuff, seems to be a case of bending reality to suit one's agenda. (Cavill, by the way, has a history in film and television going back to the beginning of the millennium.)
Footnote: This is exactly the kind of response I'd expect from someone defending the article:
Trans.: It's about me! It's always about ME ME ME!
And of course, given the tenor of this piece (thesis: "White straight man bad"), I would guess that if the author did write a piece on an actor or actress of color, the subject would need no defending.
Ironically enough, someone made the point just before this tweet appears in the article that Hammer has devoted a lot of energy to supporting black and gay filmmakers.
Footnote 2: Inevitably, director Luis Guadagnino is asked to justify not casting gay actors. It's a criticism leveled at everyone who does a gay-oriented story using straight actors, from those who don't seem to see the logical conclusion: if sexual orientation is a requirement for acting a particular role, then no gay actors should ever be cast as straight characters, right? (And of course, the point is, they're actors: they make their living making us believe they're someone else.)
OK -- that's all the political correctness I can handle right now.
My reaction to this story is to make a point of seeing any film that has Armie Hammer in the cast:
Hollywood star Armie Hammer has deactivated his Twitter account following a shade-filled thinkpiece that questioned his entire career.
While generating Oscar hype about his new film, gay romantic drama Call Me By Your Name, Hammer hit back against the negative article. . . .
The actor was responding to an essay on BuzzFeed, titled Ten Long Years of Trying to Make Armie Hammer Happen.
The article’s author, Anne Peterson, challenged Hammer’s career as “a beautiful, pedigreed white man” which afforded him opportunities to safely fail and bounce back.
This, I think, tells you all you need to know about the article:
But Hollywood would never give up on a guy that handsome, that tall, that white, with a jaw that square.
It's a hit piece, no more, no less, that goes to all sorts of places that have nothing to do with Hammer as an actor. The author really seems to resent the fact that Hammer comes from money (his grandfather was oil tycoon Armand Hammer) and keeps coming back to it, making the point over and over again that he's a "rich asshole," in spite of all the comments from people who actually know him that he's not.
Apparently, from some of the comments, it's intended to be a piece about white male power and privilege in Hollywood. What it is is a mean-spirited attack on one man. Frankly, if you want to do a piece on white male power and privilege in Hollywood, do a piece on white male power and privilege in Hollywood. It's not that hard to figure out. (The author, by the way, has a Ph.D. from the University of Texas and wrote her dissertation on the gossip industry. Maybe that explains why the "think piece" is so shallow.)
I've only seen Man From U.N.C.L.E., of Hammer's previous work, and he was more than adequate as Ilya Kuriakin. Not brilliant, maybe, but good. To blame the movie's failure on casting Hammer and Henry Cavill (whom she characterizes as "a junior-varsity Tom Cruise") as the leads, rather than a script that simply wasn't up to snuff, seems to be a case of bending reality to suit one's agenda. (Cavill, by the way, has a history in film and television going back to the beginning of the millennium.)
Footnote: This is exactly the kind of response I'd expect from someone defending the article:
Trans.: It's about me! It's always about ME ME ME!
And of course, given the tenor of this piece (thesis: "White straight man bad"), I would guess that if the author did write a piece on an actor or actress of color, the subject would need no defending.
Ironically enough, someone made the point just before this tweet appears in the article that Hammer has devoted a lot of energy to supporting black and gay filmmakers.
Footnote 2: Inevitably, director Luis Guadagnino is asked to justify not casting gay actors. It's a criticism leveled at everyone who does a gay-oriented story using straight actors, from those who don't seem to see the logical conclusion: if sexual orientation is a requirement for acting a particular role, then no gay actors should ever be cast as straight characters, right? (And of course, the point is, they're actors: they make their living making us believe they're someone else.)
OK -- that's all the political correctness I can handle right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment