Failure to Launch, Season One: Episode 1

Weeks ago when I wrote my final post on Forgotten Characters (for the time being) I promised you a new feature. Well, I’m still working on that, but I’ve still decided on another feature (I know, lofty ideals and all). By now you probably know I have my weird idiosyncrasies when it comes to irrational loathing of some actors, but sometimes it’s more than just irrational – they’ve just done nothing to make them worthwhile. So, every now and then I’ll focus on one of them. And it’s too easy to pass up on one of the most obvious choices when the feature’s title is begging me to mention him. And who am I to ignore the obvious?

                            

One career that has failed to launch, with me at least? Matthew Matthew McConaughey

                      

Prosecution, Exhibit A: The Wedding Planner

Against my better judgement I’m rather fond of Jennifer Lopez, the actress. She’s not amazingly talented, but she is personable. It’s weird, she’s doing her best to play a romantic comedy lead in The Wedding Planner and everything’s working with her except her co-lead, Mr. Matthew McConaughey. I’ll be honest, the one thing I particularly treasure in The Wedding Planner is Justin Chambers. He’s donning a faux Italian accent and he’s playing someone completely different to his congenial bastard on Grey’s Anatomy. It’s like the riddle of the sphinx with these romantic comedies, why does the leading lady always go for the prick of a man? I don’t know if Matthew McConaughey’s trying but he’s doing such a good job of making me despise him that The Wedding Planner just leaves a horrid taste in my mouth – not one for repeat viewing.

          

Prosecution, Exhibit B: How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days

This is actually a key bit of evidence used in people’s hatred of Kate Hudson. Poor Kate, she’s much better than she’s given credit for but even she can’t make this sinking ship work. Once again, a leading lady who’s trying and Matthew McConaughey just seems to be going through the motion. Surprise, surprise – he’s (once again) playing a grating character. I don’t know if that points to his range or not (or lack thereof). The film is an utter plod, but it would have been nice if he could have at least tied. Ugh.

               

Prosecution, Exhibit C: Failure to Launch

Sarah Jessica Parker, despite what everyone thinks, is a talented woman. She can play more than Carrie Bradshaw (who is more than just the self-absorbed narcissist she’s referred to as). She’s trying to be a normal romantic comedy lead here, I’m not sure if Matthew McConaughey is playing his character so well or so badly but once again I feel nothing but intense loathing for him. Sure, he goes around shirtless as is his wont, but that’s not impressing me and every time he gives that sickening grin I want to hurl. Add that to the fact that he’s starring with the other loathsome thirtysomething year old (Bradley Cooper) means that the title of the film is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

           

Defence, Exhibit A: A Time to Kill

It’s just a little ironic that after giving a fairly nuanced performance in this Grisham thriller that Matthew McConaughey decided to continue his career as an unappealing romantic comedy lead. A Time to Kill isn’t a film for the ages (it’s not Grisham’s best novel or best novel adaptation) but it works. Sandra Bullock, Matthew Matthew McConaughey and Ashley Judd put in good performances and Samuel Jackson is particularly moving here (should have been Oscar nominated, I say). Matthew McConaughey works as the conflicted lawyer and his final speech in the courtroom solidifies his top billing status. Pity, he never took it to this level again.

                

Verdict: I say he’s failed, irrefutably. But what you do think? Which side are you on? Has Matthew McConaughey proved his talents or do you, like me, think his career has failed to launch? What are your thoughts on the new feature?

TV Meme, Day 27: Best Pilot

“Welcome to the age of un-innocence, no one here has affairs to remember and no one has affairs to remember.”
                   
These are some of the first words we hear from our de facto “heroine” in the pilot episode for HBO’s Sex and the City. It was the first pilot that came to mind, and of the shows I think of as good (Friends, Six Feet Under, Grey’s Anatomy, The West Wing, Dexter etc) along with Pushing Daisies and Desperate Housewives that I saw from its actual beginning – even though it was not “live”. The pilot for Sex and the City works so well because even though, like most pilots, it’s interested in “tell”, “tell”, “tell” it works because we’re never being told too much. There’s a sweet little montage that occurs at the beginning that works excellently. It’s here we meet my favourite Sex and the City character:

MIRANDA: I have a friend, who’s always gone out with extremely sexy guys and just had a good time. One day she woke up and she was 41. She couldn’t get any more dates. She had a complete physical breakdown. Couldn’t hold on to her job and had to move back to Winsconsin to live with her mother. Trust me, this is not a story that makes men feel bad
              
I could only imagine how shocking it seemed in the nineties, but Sex and the City is never interested in shocking us for the hell of it. It sets its characters up perfectly, and for her faults Sarah Jessica Parker. Really, sometimes Carrie induces an eye roll (okay, most of the time) but even as our heroine she’s not trying to actively woo us, even the virtual absence of any significant male doesn’t hurt it. I don’t get the appeal of Mr. Big (with reason, I suppose) and Skipper is just sad even if he leads to some hilarious comedy with Miranda. Still, I don’t fault a pilot so uncaring about telling us too much and so funny (Samantha’s attempts to woo Mr. Big are just uncomfortably hilarious). It’s an auspicious start to a great show and what makes it work even better is that it works excellently as a stand alone episode.
A+
            
Notable Pilots: Six Feet Under, Desperate Housewives, Dexter
                    
Late again, I really have no excuse. MEME guilt.

TV Meme, Day 10: A Show that I Didn’t Expect to Love

Generally, I’m good at gauging what I’ll like and what I won’t. I don’t think there’s ever been a show I expected to hate which I ended up loving but often I think of Sex and the City as one of those shows that I never saw myself becoming a big fan, and in the wake of the film which has made everyone seem to forget the excellence that was the series I think it’s definitely one that is worthy of some devotion.

I think I saw a random episode of Sex and the City some time during its actual series run, but I didn’t pay much attention to it. Sometimes afterwards I bough the first two seasons for my sister and I sat down to watch a few episodes and I was quite surprised. Sex and the City is a series that works even when it shouldn’t work so well, and that’s because (unlike its big screen incarnation) Sex and the City goes about its business complete without any self-consciousness. Its humour is bawdy, but it also hits you with moments of poignancy – sometimes simultaneously. Sex and the City seems to emanate sentiment that reeks of unsophisticated femininity (no offense), but that’s merely superficial. Sure, it’s rooted in the actions of its four female protagonists but if it’s a “chick-flick” – a moniker, that unfortunately, exists as one of deprecation – it’s in the vein of Mean Girls not Material Girls. None of the characters in it are trying to gain our approvals – even if Charlotte is a bit of a people pleaser.

Incidentally, Sex and the City shows up on a few more days in the meme and I’m proud to admit allegiance to it. I don’t want to see the sequel, even lovers of the show are aware of its fault. But I hope King gets that long-awaited epiphany and realises what it was that make it the hit it was in the first place. Episode after episode did not depend on outlandish guest stars on convoluted departures from the city. It was a smart show posing as drivel – often deliberately to prove a point. I didn’t think I’d like it – I’m obviously not the target audience, but I’m glad I gave it a try – it was definitely worth it.

      

This is an entry in the meme of ongoing ruminations on the small screen.

The Plight of the TV Star

This guest post is provided by Luke Tatge of Journalistic Skepticism. From a distance he seems like your typical Streep fanatic, but he's actually more than that. You'd do well to have him on your blog roll.

          

Ah, the struggle of poor suffering TV actors. Their work is hardly as respected as that of the film or stage stars, yet they soldier on with weekly installments of often beloved characters. When it comes to the transition from small to big screen work, which seems inevitable at one point another for most television stars, it can be a treacherous path that rarely bears any fruit.

        

In the early years, it was basically understood that TV stars (possibly due to the strict studio guidelines at the time) were basically stuck with the tube when it came to finding work. Take Lucille Ball, for example – one of the biggest stars of her time, and yet she was relegated to playing varying versions of the “Lucy” character for most of her career (with the exception of a couple barely noted films).

So how do more recent TV stars fare when it comes to the big step into moviedom? Unfortunately, not so well in most cases. Arrested Development’s Jason Bateman has moved on to plenty of film work since the show wrapped, but he is mostly pushed into sideline roles. Even in the high-profile Juno, who even remembers the gifted TV star was in the cast? It seems like Lucy, he’s been pushed into playing a variation on Michael Bluth in most of his subsequent roles.

              

Sharp-tongued Rory Gilmore (a.k.a. Alexis Bledel) has had about the same amount of luck – any work she’s done since the show ended has been unanimously trounced (Post Grad) or ignored due to her co-stars (Sin City, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants). It seems these TV stars just can’t shake the persona that was so ingrained into the public week after week.

There are glimmers of hope, though. For people like Freaks and Geeks alums Jason Segel and James Franco or Cheers alum Woody Harrelson, film isn’t so out of reach. It seems the best route is to either stick with your crew and succeed or fail together or go for awards-bait roles. Although a word of caution – though folks like Mary Tyler Moore and Helen Hunt found break-out Oscary roles in 1980 and 1997 respectively (Ordinary People and As Good As It Gets), they’ve hardly enjoyed much of a career in film since.

So until Lisa Kudrow can shake Phoebe Buffay, Sarah Jessica Parker can shake Carrie Bradshaw, and Eric McCormack can shake Will Truman, how does a TV star stand a chance in the wide world of movies? Give them a chance to surprise you. 

               

Luke's thoughts are provocative. Why do you think it's so difficult for the television actor?