With Antichrist getting near the top of my favorite films last year and Penélope Cruz still tops in my annual shallow list (coming soon), it’s with great delight we learn that she’ll likely be starring in Lars Von Trier’s next film: Melancholia.
Yesterday, on Danish television the controversial director told the public he indeed has been thinking about Cruz for the lead in this role for quite some time.
More interesting than the casting decision however is the plot summary for the film in which a rogue planet (Planet Melancholia) looms ever closer to colliding with Earth. Rather than a big budget effects bonanza however, anyone familiar with Von Trier’s work understands this will be much more of a “psycholigcal drama” with “no more happy endings.” I’m not sure how it could be any more twisted or psychologically brutal than Antichrist, but if anyone can do it, it’s probably going to be Von Trier. It’ll be fun to watch how the relatively meek Cruz handles working with the notoriously misogynistic director.
With a modest budget of only $5 million, no announcements have been made as far as shooting schedules are concerned, but Sweden and Germany have been named as principal shooting locations. Some are hoping for a completion target that will have the film ready to go by next year’s Cannes Film Fest.
Add this title to my most anticipated of 2011.
Movie laboratories are one of my favorite things ever. Metropolis,...
I don’t think that 5 Million (Euros?) is a modest film budget in Europe. Outside of Luc Besson flicks, that is a quite reasonable price, certainly it has to be about the Median for LvT films.
Looks like this is not to be. And it gets worse. A LOT worse…
Word on the street is that the reason she won’t be in this is so she can be in Pirates of the Caribbean 4 with Johnny Depp.
sigh…
Can you blame her though, Andrew? She’ll get to f**k Jack Sparrow.
Penelope Cruz in a Lars Trier Joint is 10,000x preferable than Penelope Cruz in a Pirates of the Caribbean movie. If she was going to work with Gore Verbinski couldn’t she have waited until he stopped making pirate movies? Hasn’t Ms. Cruz learned from the Sahara debacle?
Okay, but to who, Kurt? 0.01% of the population? You can hardly blame her. She can sit around working for pennies doing artsy films that don’t even crack $10 million at the box office, or she can finally jump on board a proven blockbuster franchise.
The last time a movie with Penelope Cruz broke $100 million at the box office? Vanilla Sky in 2001, and it barely cracked it. It was also the only time. It’s funny that you bring up the “Sahara debacle,” Kurt, because that is her second highest grossing film at $68 million. She’s a Hollywood actress. She’s won an Oscar. She’s established her cred as a great actress. Now, she saw an opportunity to make a special-effects driven multi-million dollar blockbuster with people she likes on what would be a movie set that is probably far more laid back (and scenic) that she is used to and she took it – or she could do a Van Trier movie (who has never had a movie make over $5 million at the BO). Yes, maybe it’s unfortunate, but all of that matters.
Plus, it’s not Gore directing this, it’s Rob Marshall, who she worked with on Nine, and this will reunite her with Blow costar Johnny Depp also.
@Jonathan, Okay, but to who, Kurt? 0.01% of the population? You can hardly blame her.
Admittedly, I;m coming at this from a minority angle, but Cruz seems to flourish better in smaller productions (and yes, Almodovar productions are much smaller than even the smallest Hollywood production).
Cruz kicks ass in the Spanish Obre Los Ojos, but is lame and uninteresting in Vanilla Sky (A film I like on the whole, but I still very much prefer the original).
….And “BLOW” (despite being a pretty solid film) was easily Cruz’s worst performance to date.
I’ve actually spent a lot of time defending Cruz in Blow. I think she’s fine for what to role calls for. And Vanilla Sky? She’s fine in that too. You’ve obviously not seen Bandidas or Woman on Top. **shudder**
Well One thing is certain, I’m happy to see Rob Marshall wasting his time on Pirates Sequels instead of Verbinski, who is a very good director (much like Sam Raimi) and shouldn’t be wasting his time on directing franchise cookie-cutter entries. Thank goodness for that.
Oh, I’m in complete agreement with you. I’d say the vast majority of our readers here would much rather see her work with Von Trier also. I’m just stating how little it shocked me and I understand where she is coming from. Everybody wants their successful summer blockbuster. I think it’s a real ego boost to see yourself in figurine form on the shelves of Toys ‘R Us.
I think you can blame her for being a bad person, wanting money of artistic fulfillment.
Since when do we give people a pass just because they go for the money?
“The last time a movie with Penelope Cruz broke $100 million at the box office? Vanilla Sky in 2001, and it barely cracked it.”
You are making it sound like this is something actors ought to care about.
Christ, Henrik. I made it pretty clear I thought, it’s not about whether they ought to care about creating a box office hit, it’s that they do. Almost every actor in the Hollywood system feels that itch. It’s just the way it is, whether we like it or not. Humans seek recognition for the work that they do, it’s the way we’re wired, and box office is an indicator of that from the public.
It’s all subjective. You’re “bad person” comment is ignorant and short-sighted. Look at her filmography and you’ll see she quenches whatever sort of “artistic fulfillment” that any actress might possibly have. We live in a world that revolves around money and if she wants to make a blockbuster that provides her the money to continue her comfortable lifestyle and have a little fun on a set for once, then you can sit there on your high horse pouting about it with your arms crossed saying she’s a bad person all you want, but that makes you nothing more than a hypocrite.
I don’t think that makes me a hypocrite at all. I disagree that human beings inherently want money and fame. How is it a high horse to say that you should not whore yourself out for money? You are acting like I am out of line for saying that money isn’t important. How very american of you Jonathan!
henrik, stop will the bull “how very american.” you can disagree all you want whether or not people INHERENTLY want money and fame. fact of the matter is that we live in a world where people DO, especially when around the likes of hollywood. jonathan is not agreeing with it, which he has pointed out more than once if you used your reading comprehension, he is just saying how it is. the reality is that actors DO care about it. the reasons behind that can be argued, but it’s reality, which the point being here is that it shouldn’t be all that surprising that Penelope Cruz turned down a Von Trier film for a Pirates of the Caribbean sequel.
you’re on a high horse, because you comments make you sound like a pompous clown, actually calling her a BAD PERSON because of this choice? maybe
how very european of you.
Since when is being sadistically abused by Lars Von Trier artistic fulfillment?
My problem just comes with this “Well, you can’t really hold it against them”-attitude which is ridiculous in my opinion. Of course you can hold it against them. Saying that because money is involved people aren’t under scrutiny for making poor decisions is ridiculous, and saying that you can’t blame somebody for going for the truckload of money, I’m sorry, but it just seems so american to me. OF COURSE you can blame them.
“fact of the matter is that we live in a world where people DO”
I’ll take issue with this as well. I don’t agree that we live in a world where people want this. Some people want it, some people want other things.
blame them all you want. they’re actors. if they have a desire to make a fun popcorn movie, who are you to say otherwise? ESPECIALLY if it opens up other opportunities, such as being able to make low-budget artsy movies for the following ten years since you made $5-10 million on the blockbuster.
and now you’re just being argumentative for the sake of it. i didn’t say “in a world where ALL people do,” but it is a world where people do. and no, maybe it seems like it in your little bubble of inexperience, but it’s not just americans (for the record, i am not american).
honestly, henrik, i love reading this site most of the time, but the day i see you make have a conversation that isn’t condescending or demeaning in some way, i’m going to get some champagne and celebrate.
and no, i don’t know why i used the word “make” twice in that comment above inappropriately.
“i didn’t say “in a world where ALL people do,” but it is a world where people do. and no, maybe it seems like it in your little bubble of inexperience, but it’s not just americans (for the record, i am not american).”
Exactly, and being judgmental, I judge the people who do. Not a fan of their personalities.
Wanting the money is not an american trait, but defending people to the point of arguing that you can even question them as soon as a truckload of money is introduced to the argument, to me comes across as one.
Have I not engaged in conversation here that was not condescending or demeaning? I’m sure I have, it just was about subjects you did not care about. Either way, feel free to judge me.
she’s been nominated for three oscars. i assure you, she has turned down boat loads of cash probably hundreds of times of the past decade in order to make films like Elegy and Volver.
While I’d obviously rather her do other things than a shitty franchise film, this discussion has turned into a generality. It’s not even only actors we’re talking about here. Almost every career choice out there is done out of the necessity for money. Sure Henrik, there are a handful of people out there willing to give up a home and a car and internet access to pursue an art that they love. But this is the tiniest minority of minorities.
People work to make money. Period. They may love their job and they may be doing something creative or maybe saving lives or doing something good, but they’re in it for money. Not out of greed as your limited mind and tiny bubble of existence seems to think, but out of necessity.
A guy (me) working in an office and striving to do things better is partially so that I can move up in the rankings and yes, earn more money. I’ll one day have a family to support and that cash is important. It’s not an American thing you dolt, it’s a human thing. Judge humanity all you want, but sorry, I gotta eat.
Now obviously Cruz already has money, but
A) you’re assuming she’s doing it for the money (she’s not American either) – maybe she’s doing it to work with Depp again. Maybe she loves the pirate movies. Maybe she’s going to get a really fun and awesome character/role. Maybe Verbinski is someone she admires. Maybe she owes a favor.
B) you’ve gone beyond her and started talking about people in general. And yes, people need money and while striving for something (even a material gain) might seem like a negative for you, it is also one of the things that makes progress happen. And to me that’s a good thing. Enjoy living under a bridge and making paper mache monk statues rather than choosing something that might actually get you some scratch to rent an apartment or buy a house. I’m sure you’ll be happy with your creative endeavor in the knowledge that you aren’t acting like a greedy American and shunned the money.
“Have I not engaged in conversation here that was not condescending or demeaning?”
A) sparingly
B) it isn’t always your condescension, it’s your limited and narrow minded head space speaking as if you have some enlightened knowledge that no one else has. It makes it worse because you don’t elaborate your position often enough to back up your casual dismissals.
Haven’t we been down this road before? I swear to fucking chocolate dragons, everytime I disagree with one of you sensitive people, I end up having to explain my entire way of being.
Of course you do. When you call someone a “bad person”, A) under an assumption B) for doing something that 99.99% of the population does out of necessity and C) categorizing them geographically, then yes, you need to explain your way being.
Having said that:
“I swear to fucking chocolate dragons…”
Awesome line.
Well, lets see Henrik, you have to do this (constantly explain your entire way of being) for the authors of this site, you have to do it for the readers of this site (constantly explain your entire way of being), It must be all of us, the whole world that has it wrong. It couldn’t be you or anything. Naw, that is crazy talk to think that maybe, oh maybe it’s Henrik’s particular brand of communication.
How silly of us all, we’re all so thin skinned running and reading an open forum on the internets.
(and yes, if it wasn’t obvious, there is a thick slather of sarcasm in the last couple sentences above.)
Isn’t it enough that I have done it over and over and over again though?
My america point was pointed towards Jonathan, not Penelope Cruz by the way. His argumentation, not Cruz’s actions, prompted it.
Maybe I can take back the bad person thing if that’s what really grinds you guys’ gears. You can substitute whatever phrasing is more suitable to your sensibilities.
Henrik you simply don’t get that 9/10 your particular way of responding SHUTS DOWN THE CONVERSATION rather than taking it to the next level.
Frankly, if it were not for the 10% of the time when you do actually broach something, I imagine the bulk of the readers and contributors of this site would have stopped engaging you all together.
Some of the stuff that has been written in these comment threads would likely not be tolerated (or simply completely ignored) on many a website, blog or forum. The fact that we still engage kinda, you know, makes us the good guys.
Or this is simply another perspective.
Well gee, thanks for not using your authority to ban me.
Are you really setting yourself up as a victim? We’re talking. It’s words. I stated my opinion on the issues raised in the thread, then responded personally to people calling me out by name. I don’t see how I took the conversation anywhere other than where it was already going.
To be frank, the fact that you feel like you are doing me a favor by responding to me (seing as how you see, nobody in their right mind would, only the enlightened authors of this haven would have the courage and self-sacrifice to do this) is pretty god damned insulting.
Congrats Henrik, now you have some insight on the other side of the equation. There are no victims here, because really all we are doing is talking about movies. We like talking to a variety of people with a variety of opinions (obviously).
My point is that the authors of this site are not alone in being rubbed the wrong way by your manner of engaging in the conversation. And you know if it is just about everyone out there, well maybe time to look in the mirror rather than setting up someone who lets you know what is going on as ‘crying themselves a victim.’
or don’t. It is up to you whether you want to join in and engage or lob stinkballs from the corner.
wonder if she’ll cut off her clit..
Oh, I’m sure Von Trier can find something more humiliating since he has crossed that particular barrier with Antichrist.
I’m not even sure why I’m going to take the bait, but really, Henrik, your behavior is very obtuse at times. You can make your American cracks all you want, but I gave an examination of how things are in Hollywood and not how they should be. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs other than saying you can shrug it off and accept it as the way it is or you can complain about it. It’s not politics, I’m not going to start a petition or write an editorial on it, because when it comes right down to it, I really don’t care. They’re just movies. Every actor has to right to choose whatever they please. And you think human beings inherently don’t want money and fame. I think that human beings are inherently selfish. That’s not American. That’s Nietzsche. Or Hobbes. But I digress.
Regardless, like Andrew said, you’re relying on assumptions – and admittedly so was I. We don’t know her reasoning behind her choices.