Yesterday I started reading Georgina Howell's biography of Gertrude Bell. Ms. Bell is a really fascinating individual: an Englishwoman who spurned pretty much all of her era's conventions, she did turns as an archaeologist, explorer, mountaineer, spy, Arabist and political player. If you're looking to credit (or blame) anyone for the current State of the Middle East, look no further than Ms. Bell; indeed, Christopher Hitchens calls her "the woman who made Iraq."
Today I came discovered that Ridley Scott, once he wraps up Prometheus, his mooted Alien prequel, is planning a biopic of Ms. Bell. Scott wouldn't be my first choice for the subject, but beggars can't be choosers.
Which leads us to the $64,000 question: Who is playing Gertrude Bell? Funny you should ask...
Yes, Angelina Jolie.
As if that weren't insulting enough, Jolie is also lined up to play Cleopatra.
Why get worked up over this? Hollywood recently has been turning lots of fascinating history into lousy films, from Public Enemies to J. Edgar. Red Tails, debuting this week, seems likely make a mess of the Tuskegee Airmen if the trailers are any indication.
This isn't a new phenomenon, of course; Hollywood's been cramming actors into ridiculous roles for time immemorial (Gary Cooper as Marco Polo? John Wayne as Genghis Khan?). Regardless, for a history buff like me it's disheartening. These are important, fascinating people who deserve to have their stories told, not poorly-thought-out schlock or Oscar-baiting bores. Is it so hard to ask they cast someone who looks and acts vaguely like the individuals they're portraying? Is it possible that a Ridley Scott epic can be anything but dull and derivative? And Angelina Jolie, seriously?
On the plus side, this might mean a Lawrence of Arabia remake with Leo DiCaprio. Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment