|
Raise your hands, everyone who's noticed that two of this year's five Best Picture nominees star alumnae of Empire Records. You've come a long way, Liv Tyler and Renée Zellweger.
It's only been eight years since Records, and so much has changed -- well, for those two, anyway. Anthony LaPaglia, Ethan Embry, and Rory Cochrane all ended up on cop shows. Robin Tunney and Debi Mazar are probably about as famous now as they were then. Liv Tyler -- who was, at the time Records came out, its most famous cast member, rewarded with the prime position on the poster -- has had her ups (the LOTR trilogy) and downs (One Night at McCool's). But if you plotted Renée Zellweger's career on a line graph, it would look pretty flat for most of the '90s, rising steeply in 2000 with Nurse Betty, and shooting straight up ever since. After years of picking up scraps from other actresses more famous than she, Renée is a single-name superstar.
Of course, in light of Zellweger's stunningly vertical career trajectory despite her humble beginnings, the question is which of the moderately cute stars of today's teen comedies is eight years away from her second Best Actress Oscar nomination? Kirsten Dunst? Reese Witherspoon? Katie Holmes? Any of them, we would submit, has as much claim to success as an actor as Zellweger does. They each have a pleasantly likable screen presence (which sounds like damnation with faint praise, but is actually a rarer blessing than you'd think; it's the difference between a Kirsten Dunst and a Neve Campbell). They're each attractive in a kind of perky but not especially stunning way (the difference between a Katie Holmes and an Angelina Jolie). They each have a reputation for extreme diligence in their work -- more diligence than raw talent, you might say (the difference between a Reese Witherspoon and a Kate Winslet). Renée Zellweger has gotten where she is today by cultivating her girl-next-doorishness, squinching up her face in a manner that approximates cuteness, and working very, very hard. Sometimes that package trumps demonstrable, unique talent and versatility; in this case, it has.
All this sounds like I hate Renée Zellweger and begrudge her success, neither of which is true. I will admit that I thought she was pretty average in Jerry Maguire and spent the several years following it annoyed by her and her squinty chipmunk face. When Nurse Betty came out, I avoided seeing it because of her, even though friends told me she would win me over if I saw her, which turned out to be true -- although she lost me again when I heard she would be playing the title role in Bridget Jones's Diary. Over a British actress? Over Minnie Freaking Driver or Kate Freaking Winslet? Come on. But then I saw that and was charmed by Zellweger all over again, and realized that I couldn't loathe her anymore.
All those years post-Maguire that I spent hating her -- which I probably should have spent hating Cameron Crowe for turning his own insipid script into such an offensive ode to codependence -- I failed to notice that Zellweger was making some wise career decisions. She used her Maguire heat to participate in a risky independent film that was unlike anything she had done before (A Price Above Rubies), and also ended up among Oscar winners William Hurt and Meryl Streep in the cast of One True Thing. She presumably starred in Me, Myself, & Irene to be close to her then-fiancé, Jim Carrey, so we'll excuse it...and then it was on to Nurse Betty and untrammeled success forever after. (Why she made The Bachelor is an utter mystery to us. Perhaps because, back in 1999, J.Lo wasn't big enough yet to take all those crappy roles?)
So now, Renée Zellweger is a huge star. And yet, for a big star, she is oddly bereft of star quality. In that way, Chicago is like The Renée Zellweger Story -- the story of a striver who doesn't really have all that much to recommend her, and who is far less glamorous and charismatic than the rival she idolizes and (temporarily) unseats. Zellweger is Zeta-Jones's inferior as a singer, as a dancer, and, frankly, as a looker. Part of the reason we believe the dynamic between Roxie and Velma in the movie is that Zeta-Jones outshines her so effortlessly; by comparison, Zellweger is just a chorine with skinny legs. Aside from the singing and hoofing she has to do in Chicago, Zellweger's biggest roles haven't required her to do much apart from act like a rube (Nurse Betty) a spaz (Bridget Jones's Diary), or a dim and basically amoral fame whore (Chicago). Just because she has done well within that rather limited scope doesn't mean she's a great actress; contrast the range Zellweger has displayed in those three roles with that we've seen Nicole Kidman display in Moulin Rouge!, The Others, and The Hours. There's a much bigger difference between Satine and Virginia than there is between Betty and Roxie.
The fact is that Renée Zellweger has gotten much further with what she's got than she had any right to expect or even hope for, and much, much further than she deserves. Though it does go to show you what a difference choosing good scripts can make for a girl who's kind of cute and only a little bit talented. Kirsten Dunst, Reese Witherspoon, and Katie Holmes, take note.
|
