The Right Place at The Right Time – How a Breakout Role Defines a Career

Wikipedia.com defines a breakout role thusly: “A breakthrough role, also known as breakout role, is a term in the film industry to describe the performance of an actor or actress in a film or television show which contributed significantly to the development of their career and beginning of critical recognition. Such a moment in an actor's career may often occur some time after they begin acting as their roles become more substantial. Often a breakthrough role is a significant increase in importance in the actor's part in the film moving up from a minor character or extra to one of the leading cast, or a "high impact" role in a film which has mainstream success and results in the widespread recognition or popularity of the actor.” I can’t help but think the way we perceive talent and star power is hugely connected to an actor’s initial success – the moment of critical recognition as having talent to keep one’s eye on, garnering attention from either the masses or someone important as being “someone to watch”.  I want to explore this idea with a few actresses, because what kind of American would I be if I wasn’t conscious or subconsciously buying into the draw of the male gaze?? We keep “pitting women against each other” because it’s entertaining, and whether they admit it or not, they love it. ANYWAY.

Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress, yes, but would we believe that if her breakout role wasn’t in Winter’s Bone (2010), where she played a destitute stricken gritty teenager gutting squirrels and searching for her meth making father in the back woods of Missouri? What if her breakout role was actually (what we would all agree is) Blake Lively’s breakout role, the over eager and flirtatious soccer star in Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (2005)? Would Jennifer Lawrence become a David O. Russell darling had she played Blake’s horny jock pre nose job? (YOU KNOW Blake’s nose is post op. Google it.) Methinks not.

When you’re interested in an acting career, one of the most common phrases you’ll hear is “being in the right place at the right time.” Maybe Blake was too busy getting her nose done to go to the casting call of Winter’s Bone, but she either didn’t audition for it, or the director wasn’t interested in casting her because of her previous role(s). Do you see what I’m getting at here? Other than Blake’s nose? (I’m done with the nose jokes, I promise. LUV U BLAKE.) The director of Winter’s Bone presumably wanted an actress who no one was too familiar with, who we could buy into as being rough and tough and Sundance-ready.

After Jennifer proved her acting chops in a meaty role that garnered her an Oscar nom, she eventually moved on to more Serious Actress films including Russell’s Silver Lining’s Playbook (2012), American Hustle (2013), and Joy (2015) - all of which received rave reviews and various noms on her part. Let’s not forget X-Men and The Hunger Games franchises. Yes, Jennifer was good, but could Blake have played these roles just as well? Theoretically. Arguably. In Lawrence’s latest Vogue cover story, she mentions being relieved at having finished her contracted franchises. She understood that she had become a new “tour de force” (UGH. So overused, that phrase) and wanted to hand pick her roles accordingly. I was a fan of Lawrence until I read her story. She came off as conceited, snobby, and a bit too self-important. The actress who was once endearing has tipped over the line of too try-hard. I suppose it was about time, it’s pretty much inevitable when a star is so upfront about themselves. Their likability is almost always going to have a downfall. (In regards to likability/downfalls - Amy Schumer also comes to mind. And Anne Hathaway. See the pattern here? It has to do with reproductive organs. Can I be sexist as long as I acknowledge I’m being sexist? No? I digress.)

Meanwhile, Blake became the new Cali girl beach-babe, and starred in the CW’s high school version of Sex and the City – Gossip Girl (2007). This role simultaneously solidified her hotness, Barbie bod, unrealistically perfect hair, and mediocre acting chops. Although critics have cited her Elvis and Anabelle (2007) role as being her breakout, Imma go ahead and assume you’d all agree with me in saying you’ve never even heard of it. Lively attempted to flex her cRaFt when she played a gritty Bostonian in Ben Affleck’s The Town (2010) – her moments where both anticipated and forgettable. SIGH. A swing and a miss, Blakey. She then starred in Green Lantern (2011) with her future (and my future 2^nd) husband, Ryan Reynolds. The film was a flop, and you already knew that. Did ANYONE see it?? No I didn’t think so. (I just caught parts of it while I switched between that and the last debate and MY GOODNESS they were just as bad as each other.) Lively then ironically replaced Lawrence’s character in Oliver Stone’s thriller Savages (2012). I haven’t seen it, but I’ve been wanting to. I am prepared to yet again be let down by Blake and watch her get seriously out acted by her costars – John Travolta, Benicio del Toro, Salma Hayek……I believe this is an actress who is given second, third, and forth chances to show her skill and can never quite commit to ‘being ugly’. Can you imagine her playing a role like Charlize Theron’s in Monster? I can’t. If she were trying to sell that to me, I wouldn’t buy it. But she doesn’t sell that, she sells the Pretty Girl. It’s what she likes to sell. And I know plenty of people who buy it…..I saw The Shallows this summer, and Blake was yet again making a pointed effort to play a more challenging role who shifts from moments of screaming in unimaginable pain to delivering dialogue for the sake of dialogue: “NOT TODAY (SHARK).” Even in this bikini-clad shark attack thriller, Blake managed to maintain a certain level of prettiness. It’s like she’s unable to make herself look ugly. Or she’s just THAT attractive. I just couldn’t take her seriously.

 It’s pretty apparent to me that an actress is only as good as her opportunities, characters, and skills, and the delicate balance of those three is what defines a career path and certain set of chops. In my opinion, a career is established thusly. It takes a lot of effort and convincing to turn around one’s star persona and abilities. This seems more likely when one is shifting from one genre to another, like comedians who do drama well. Matthew McConaughey is someone who has surprised me with his overnight switch from fluffy rom-com stardom to serious actor with real, true talent – prompting critics to concot the term ‘McConaissance’. He just needed to get the chance to play those roles. Not trying to be sexist, but I can’t think of a female actress who has had a similar career path – flipping it on its head and defying what we thought she was capable of. Anyone come to mind? Or is it that women aren’t given these shots? Charlize Theron has shown her talent is ever spanning. And Meryl Streep comes to mind but I’m not familiar enough with her entire career……

I know the things I’ve said here are sweeping generalizations, but……what do YOU think? Are actors actually capable of playing many levels of roles? Are our opinions of their abilities solely based on their career paths?

High Maintenance

I’m a huge sucker for vignettes, and that’s literally all this show is. High Maintenance gives the viewer glimpses into modern, humorous, everyday New Yorker lives strung together with The Guy as the thread – a charming (and SUPERBLY acted) bicycle-riding marijuana deliveryman. The basic plot serves as the perfect vessel for diversity and realism. From a Pakistani American college girl who’s weed sources have dried up to a Chinese couple collecting cans on the daily to a foppish gay guy with his exhaustingly droney basic bitch roommate to a middle aged couple and their eager swinging party goers, the show has limitless stories to tell. It could literally go on forever with new characters and people to put on display. The show is an eye opener for those still waving the Reefer Madness flags – ICYMI, everyone smokes weed. Like, everyone.

The show started out as a web series (which HBO also has via their watching sources,) in poignant, neat little less-than-twenty-minute vacuum-sealed packages. Since being picked up by the self proclaimed ‘it’s not TV’ TV, the original production value is nearly indiscernible from the wealthy television giants when watched side by side. These extended episodes HBO is producing have so far done both a service and disservice to the show. I believe I’ve seen three now, and there are two hits and one miss. The show does well when it splits the time between two vignettes, and does less well when the tale is told through the eyes of a dog. Good storytelling risk, though!! Good on rolling paper, not so much in execution, methinks. There seems to be decidedly more diversity in the HBO episodes versus the original web series. Surely a choice encouraged by the money-backers. And I applaud and encourage it!! Representation! Diversity! Did I already say diversity? More diversity!! Please!

As I mentioned before, Ben Sinclair as The Guy is a standout performance. Maybe that’s because he’s the character you see the most of…maybe because as a weed dealer his job is to be a people person. Or maybe it’s because Sinclair has an incredible comedic sense and is simply an excellent actor. The Guy has a fluffy beard and teddy bear qualities. The success of his business thrives on his affability. Where the stories ride up and down and all around, Guy’s character works as a shoulder to cry on or advice to hear from – and he has the best position to be in – as soon as things get weird he excuses himself out! That’s another thing – so many times I winced with expectation waiting for the stories to become overly painful, for moments of utter horror and cringeyness. Those moments always almost come-to, but this determined comedy never lets it happen. THANK YOU, High Maintenance!

The humor lies in the writing, genuine situational conflict, hilarious authenticity, and impressive acting chops unsurprisingly plucked from the deep acting pool that is New York City. High Maintenance is satisfying in its casual display of everyday pot smoking. The herb becomes a non-issue in this honest catalogue of people next door. The show threatens to be a dramadey, never quite reaching melodrama, always attaining el-oh-elz.

It’s such a great show, people. One of my current faves. Go check out High Maintenance on HBO.

Spotlight – I Got 99 Problems And A Few Of Them Have To Do With Spotlight

There is some sort of subconscious expectation one must acknowledge when one watches a film that has received an Oscar for Best Picture (and Best Original Screenplay…and three Golden Globes.) Spotlight had a lot of what I expected, and was missing a lot of what I expected. When a film focuses on a heart -wrenching, but true story, it will naturally be emotionally demanding and manipulative of the viewer, and I fear this film used its frankly horrifying facts as a crutch. Spotlight is about the Boston Globe's Spotlight investigative team exposing the repeated molestation of young children by priests - and the Catholic Church's cover-up of this blatantly criminal behavior. Aaaaaaand that’s about it.

Because of its Oscar for Best Picture, I expected Spotlight to have emotional peaks and valleys. I expected the characters uncovering this oh-so-painful story and truth to be internally tormented in a way I can only imagine the real journalists were. I thought the film would be an emotional rollercoaster for viewers sheepishly peeking through covered eyes. Instead, this cringe-worthy, truthful, real plot drove the entire vehicle. Here’s how I see it: journalists decide to investigate a story the modern viewer is painfully aware of. They slowly uncover more and more blasphemous sins “The Church” has made, but only just as we are expecting them. Where you anticipate them to find more people were involved, they uncover THERE WERE. Then you expect them to learn of the subsequent cover-ups, and THERE THEY ARE. Then you presume there will be meetings with victims, and THERE ARE. I’m afraid the viewer is one step ahead of the journalists throughout the story, and I feel this is a negative aspect of the movie. Even though this makes the film a bit too predictable, it does lead its viewers on a similar journey to what the real journalists went through: their horror in their hunches being unpleasantly correct. This does not reduce the tenderness of the overall plot – no, quite the contrary. This film thrives solely on its narrative. The story is so distressingly true, a watcher can’t help but be hypnotized in his dread – surely mirroring what the actual journalists of the time felt.

Here’s my problem. As the story was so pushed by plot and truth, the characters of the journalists as written in the script lacked emotional connection. Even in a minute moment of reflection, Rachel McAdams’ character seemed to half-smirk as she commented on what a ‘shitty feeling’ the journalists would get as they uncovered the story. (Was that just me? Ok, just me.) It was as if there was no time to see what one of the reporters was truly feeling during the heartache. I would have LOVED to see a shot of a reporter silently sobbing – trying their best to manage the overspill of emotion they surely suppressed while fulfilling their objective civic duty in uncovering one of the biggest media stories of all time. Can you imagine the anguish??? I don’t feel it was displayed properly. Or at all, even. Heart was lacking in this film. The journalists weren’t as nearly emotionally connected as I wanted them to be as they slowly drew the veil off of the nefarious reality.

Those painful moments did exist briefly; as reporters interviewed victims, there were mini peaks of emotion shown through minor characters' performances. But as soon as the character reopened the wound, the scene closed it off again. I wanted to see more pain. I love tragedy in film, and I wanted my heart to break into a thousand pieces from this film. I wanted to cry, and they never quite brought me there. And this is a story where it would not have been hard to do that!! The hurt was hushed here, and it should have been plastered across digital sprockets for all to see and feel.

Not all the performances lacked depth; Liev Schreiber stands out as Marty Baron - newly appointed Editor in Chief of the Boston Globe, who also happens to be Jewish (– this point could have been exploited, and I’m glad it wasn’t.) His poise and mastery of Marty’s new work role is downright commanding, and he manages to turn a character with not much persona, background, or lines into a mesmerizing display. Stanley Tucci excels as Mitchell Garabedian - a lawyer for the sexual abuse victims. His interactions with Mark Ruffalo’s supposedly exact impersonation of Michael Rezendes are enthralling and breathtaking; as the two characters interact, much of the plot turns between them. Sooooo even though the existing footage may not reflect it properly, per se, I took acting very seriously in high school. I went to a dozen plus theater conventions where we did workshops and classes in things like stage combat, playwriting, and character composing. Here’s my problem. I get what Mark was doing, I really do. I’ve been there. I understand wholly consuming a persona and mentality that emits from every pore. But. BUT. If I were directing this film, I would have told Mark to take it down a notch. I will say he has a better time in the second act than the first, but in the first act it just feels so…..contrived….to me. My husband tells me Ruffalo met with the real Michael Rezendes, so one can surmise he portrays the character expertly. And that is fine. But. BUT. Where the rest of the ensemble cast resides on the spectrum of acting, Mark drives his character to the extreme. His physicality is certainly attaining something, but it’s my personal opinion he takes it a bit too far. It’s almost distractingly different from the rest of the cast, and not in a good way. Rachel McAdams also does a good job as journalist Sacha Pfeiffer – she practices restraint where Ruffalo does not, but McAdams was a victim of the script – never truly given a chance to stretch in poignant emotional peaks.

I get why this film has garnered its ornaments. When you write a script about the uncovering of the Catholic Church and world’s biggest and most shocking sexual scandal, you’re setting yourself up for a lot of attention and scrutiny. When your script gets picked up by a not quite top tier but notable production company, you’re posing for Academy creds. If the film was based on any other subject, it would not have won Best Picture…..yeeeeaaahhh, I’m gonna stand by that statement. As I remember The Oscars airing, it was a shock and possible upset compared to the other contenders – The Revenant, Room, Bridge of Spies, Brooklyn, The Big Short, The Martian, Mad Max: Fury Road……..I meeeeaaaaannnnnn………..

Listen, if you want a beautiful film about a Bostonian and a true, sickening tale of sexual abuse that has heart, politics, humor, and integrity, watch Barry Crimmins in the documentary Call Me Lucky.

Schitt's Creek - or The Best Show You're Not Watching

Is the comedy bug genetic? Is it nature or nurture? It’s probably both, but in this case, I like to think it’s genetic. Daniel Levy is the co-creator/writer behind the genius Schitt’s Creek – he’s the son of legendary Eugene Levy, who most of you probably recognize best from the dad in American Pie. But Eugene is sooooo much more, oh yes. Dip into the resplendent pond of director Christopher Guest’s iconic mockumentaries and you’ll see him in every one. As I know him, Eugene started at SCTV in Canada (with his soulcastmate Catherine O’Hara) and grew his recognizable stardom from there. His son was no doubt influenced by the keen comedic genius of his father. Daniel Levy shines as the quasi-straight character (in every way) semi navigating his formerly rich family through a treacherous and devastating loss of their fortune, their “things”, their understanding of the world – their lives. 

After this one-percenter family takes the biggest possible fiscal loss from a crooked financier family member, they are left with nothing but the town Dad jokingly purchased for his son on one of his adolescent birthdays. (“You actually bought that town?? You could have just Photoshopped the deed!” “Yes, I bought it, that was the joke!! Owning the town was the joke!!”) The Rose family is forced to move to Schitt’s Creek as an interim – resisting a cultural understanding in a Podunk town where everyone knows your name. This is a cliché trope; we have all seen it before. Rich family becomes poor and is forced to adjust accordingly. I’m mostly thinking of Arrested Development here, and one cannot ignore the comparison. The tale is old as time. Schitt’s Creek manages to inject a newness and freshness to the expected clichés. Much of the comedy in the show can be described as people not taking hints. Social cues are missed, the clash of the classes is clear in the lack of understanding social cues. This goes both ways, too. Personally I feel this is a focus of the comedy, and why the class on class trope can always be funny. I mean, that’s what this show is based on, clearly. Differences in class. 

Catherine O’Hara is a scene-stealer with her consummate strut and refined acting style. Full disclosure – this is my favorite actress of ALL TIME. YES. I SAID IT. And I’m not afraid to. Catherine commands and sells in a way no others do. She shines in shrillness. The more upset her characters get, the better she performs. If you can’t stand a woman shrieking, avoid this show. Catherine masterfully envelops a persona in her voice, diction, posture, and character flaws. She is possibly the most unique actress of our time. Where Meryl is bound to an expected display of abilities, Catherine has room to stretch. Allegedly she did the show as a favor to Eugene, and I am FOREVER GRATEFUL, because Moira Rose is one of the best characters on television today. A snobby ex-soap star, she married John Rose and became eternally comfy. (“I asked ‘who’s the eyebrows buying everyone’s drinks??”) Catherine has developed a way of delivering a line that is so distinctly hers. She takes her time to say what she says exactly as she wants to. Her emphasis in choice syllables belongs to her and her character(s) only. Part of the humor in her is her pace of delivery. I can’t do it justice, but a highlight is when John is trying to fix a door to their motel room – Moira says “Oh for the love of God Daviiiid!!, pick up a hammer and nail…this…coffin…shut!!” (A great example of joke writing, too!) Eugene is John Rose – some sort of video supplier magnate. This is a strong point of the show – they never truly reveal what John’s business was, just that it was huge and lucrative. (I’m lead to believe he was a sort of B&H Photo Video type…to all you filmies out there.) The lack of information with where their money came from and how is a welcomed element to the show. It’s not relevant, so it’s not touched on. Another strong point – the lack of conflict in John and Moira’s marriage. An un-clichéd approach, John and Moira’s marriage is so strong they actually question a potential boyfriend of their daughter by immediately asking “are your parents still together??” - clearly an explanation of a person’s entire being just by uncovering that one fact. The two are so practiced in their marriage they know precisely how to handle each other’s problems and moods. As someone sick of the ‘Dad’s an idiot’ trope, I encourage the freshness of an unquestionably eternal marriage. I can only beg they keep it this way…

David Rose is one of the most unique characters on TV today. Daniel Levy uniformly balances the conflicting characteristics of being both obliviously rich and sensibly sarcastic all while maintaining a questionable sexuality. His standout moments come from genuine cluelessness that turns aware and sarcastic once his comically ignorant questions are answered by the equally dry motel desk worker – Stevie. Daniel’s talent is truly in his writing and creativity. He has written a lot of the show, and the writing is so entertaining, from the plots to the characters to the jokes and lines. Daniel’s delivery is so on point, I can’t even, ya’all. This kid needs an Emmy. Acknowledgement where it’s due – Alexis Rose (by newbie Annie Murphy) is the current Lindsay Bluth Funke. When played properly, the dumb rich girl will never not be funny. I find it utterly important to own this archetype through physicality: showing one's snobbiness via strut and an ever-present contrapposto stance. Alexis up talks like a valley girl, has a clueless charm about her, and says “nooooouhhhhh!!!” when she is upset. Her coping mechanism is men; she shows little sign of despair with her new residential anguish. She simply throws herself at men and flirts with whoever sticks. Or repels – for sport, of course. 

As a major fan of fashion, I gotta shout out to the costumes in this show. From John Rose’s perfectly tailored I’m-a-multi-millionaire suits (those mile high collars tho) to Alexis’ faux hippie flouncy hats and fluttery skirts, to David and Moira’s cohesive strictly black and white wardrobes occasionally resembling cliché fugitive stripes, these costumes give me LIIIIIIFE. I would literally wear every single thing Moira Rose dons on the show. I want her trumpet skirts and fingerless gloves, I love her dark nails and weighty rings. With Moira, more is more. She occasionally sports a pair of bracelets poignantly resembling a sophisticated set of handcuffs. Her penchant for wigs assists in her display of moods. The woman can DRESS. 

Schitt’s Creek is the best show on TV that you’re not watching. I beg you to. The show is out of Canada, and I’m not sure what channel it airs on, but you can watch Season 1 for free on Amazon Prime and Season 2 will cost you a few, BUT IT IS SO WORTH IT. For the love of comedy, go watch Schitt’s Creek.