And now a post to even it up. Just because I like Jennifer Aniston better. Not because she’s America’s sweetheart, or the classic girl next door, or the ever suffering, unlucky in love, but still kick ass gal. No, I like her because I’ve grown fond of her through years of watching ‘Friends’.

[http://www.people.com/people/jennifer_aniston/0,,,00.html]

Really, she was always going to be the popular one from the start. For ten or so years Jennifer had been entertaining us, made herself part of our lives. There was a strong connection, a relationship that had been nurtured every week in our lounge rooms. She had made her way into our hearts in way that Angelina never could. The wholesome Jen, next to the bad girl Ange.

These are the people who fill the gossip magazines. They are well and truly celebrities, as opposed to stars. But why? Well, I would say that for me it’s because Angelina Jolie is known for her action movies, that aren’t particularly dialogue savvy, or focus on her acting skills. Unless wearing tight fitting clothing, and doing high kicks with nice looking legs is brilliant acting. It’s not. Which is why she’s not a star.

(Talking of nice legs, have you checked out Jen’s?)

 [http://scarletmom.com/2011/07/making-peace-with-your-body/jennifer-aniston-long-legs/]

Maybe Ange can get props for working with Clint in ‘The Changeling’. But he’s the kind of guy that can get anybody and turn them into brilliance. Kind of like Tarrentino (but high brow).

For Jennifer, I would say that a large part of falling into the celebrity category is that she is closely connected to television. Television always seems to mean second rate, and I wonder if that will start to change with the widely reported upon changing of the medium itself. Television doesn’t have to deem a person as a celebrity though, as it does produce many good actors. The people in ‘The West Wing’, ‘Mad Men’, ‘The Wire’, ‘The Sopranos’, ‘Six Feet Under’, etc. But you will notice a general trend with these shows, they are all serious dramas. They may have comedic elements, and shows like ‘Breaking Bad’ especially push this side, but in general a lot of what is considered ‘good acting’ is the ability to play a serious role. There are a whole heap of actors that are loved for being able to play a heart wrenching part, meanwhile only a slim amount of comedic actors (Steve Carrel, John Cleese) are considered genius. Is it because comedy is considered easier to watch, it is therefore thought of as easier to act? As a personal view I think Jennifer Aniston is a very good comic actor, she has a brilliant sense of timing and knows how to deliver a line, and yet I too didn’t start to really respect her as an actor until I saw Nicole Holofcener’s ‘Friend’s With Money’. She had now justified herself, she was able to act a range of roles and not just be a comedic actor. But is a actor who is experienced in dramatic roles expected to be able to act in a comedic role to demonstrate their range? I think they would possibly be criticised for not, but would still have a respect that comedic actors seem to lack.

But what about the hoards of crap that Jennifer has been in, I hear you say. Well then, what about Elizabeth Taylor? And she’s still a star.

I should probably end by saying that comedic actors need to be taken more seriously, because that’s a neat way to end this post. But then that would be lame. So… lets end here.

 

[http://www.celebridoodle.com/celebridoodle/jennifer-aniston-shows-some-leg-pictures.html]

Advertisements