10 actresses who could play the new Barbarella

Dig it: By the 41st Century, humans have totally evolved beyond boring old sexual intercourse. For them, sex means taking something called “the pill” (and here I thought the pill meant not wanting to have sex). Crazy! What will they think of next!?

When a groovy little sexpot by the name of “Barbarella” heads into deep, dark space on a mission to save Earth, things go from kinky to kitschy to corny to campy in quick succession, and often all at the same time. Doe-eyed Barbarella finds herself in some bawdy misadventures, including a sex piano and a frightening encounter with some freaky flesh-eating dolls that nip at her fishnets. She also finds (thanks to counter-culture scribe Terry Southern) one excuse after another to have lots of funky space-age sex.

If Barbarella, the woman and the movie, could be boiled like a chicken down to its essence, it’d have to be this:  she’s a pleasure machine. Embodied by Jane Fonda, the chick was one naughty astro, simultaneously pulling off a potent mix of wide-eyed naivete, natural-born sensuality, and enthusiastic randiness. Fonda’s Barbarella was hilariously, eagerly, endlessly “up for it.” Practically any man, winged angel, machine or what have you had only to glance her way for Fonda to start disrobing, as she did famously in the movie’s zero-gravity opener. Though a little clunky by today’s standards, that opener is still something to behold, thanks entirely to Fonda. I’m surprised it’s taken them this long to talk remake.

And while I’m no fan of Robert Rodriguez, I had to hand it to him when he chose Rose McGowan for his big-budget remake of the camp classic. If Fonda was the sexpot they needed to carry the cheese back in ‘68, McGowan’s the sexpot we need to carry it now. The original flick was, more or less, nothing but a good excuse to see Jane Fonda naked, to see Jane Fonda orgasm, to see Jane Fonda wear sci-fab outfits… in short, to see Jane Fonda (which, in 1968, was something people actually wanted).

But Rodriguez has left the Barbarella, which means McGowan is out, a pity really, because she might have been great. She’s nothing now like Fonda was then, but I’m not sure anyone is. While Hollywood may never find another Jane Fonda, I think everyone on this list of ten sexy, intriguing actresses should get serious consideration.

(babble)

Sienna Miller.

Miller’s name is already being tossed about as a favorite. Pros:  she’s almost exactly the same age (28) that Fonda was in ‘68 (though I’m not sure there’s not some “fuzzy math” involved in that number). Sure she’s sexy, smoldering in fact, if you want to get right down to it, and I suggest we do. And having Barbarella be a Brit could be fun. Let us not forget that it was the accent that got Austin Powers shagged in the first place. And Miller loves to get naked. Cons:  I’m not sure she could pull off wide-eyed; those eyes of hers are a bit too aware, (self-aware?) though that may say more about our age than anything about Miller as a person. I’m sure she’s very nice. Ultimately: Sexy yes, but sensual? Not like Fonda.

(iconocast)

Olivia Thirlby.

Thirlby is pretty, funny, and truly interesting to look at. Pros:  she actually has Fonda’s unique (at the time) mix of sensuality and naivete; she could totally sell all those, “Oh hellos.” But would she take it all off? It hasn’t happened yet (believe me, I’ve checked). Cons:  she may simply be too idiosyncratic, too unique. Could you see her stripping to nothing from a spacesuit while keeping a straight face?

(electricityandlust

Emily Blunt.

Look at her. To quote Raising Arizona: A hellcat. T.I.G…E.R! Pros:  as an actress, she’s a chameleon. She’s also very funny, has a face straight from the sculptor’s table, and possesses an inner sex kitten that’s just waiting to claw its way out and have some deep-space fun (I may be projecting). With a roster of upcoming films that includes some heavy hitters (The Wolf Man with Del Toro; Gulliver’s Travels with Jack Black), Blunt may also soon have the B.O. clout to carry what promises to be a bigger, louder, less sexy Barbarella (why are they remaking this, again?). Cons:  she might be more able than her fellow Brit to play naive, but I bet it wouldn’t be naive enough.

(lastfm)

Lindsay Lohan.

Before Ma Lohan put the icing on the destruct-o-cake that is her daughter, Lohan was the girl with promise. Then she started hanging out with Paris, rather than in Paris (unlike plenty of others – what!? I’m talking about the city). We all know how well that’s gone. Pros:  playing Barbarella could put Lohan back on top. She’s got that steamy stew of camp, kitch, and “up for it” sexuality that, though often problematic in life, could result in the most intense Barbarella of them all. Also, she worked with Altman! If he were alive he’d be just the man for this job. The girl knows how to have fun and get naked, at least in public. Cons:  can you say “completion bond trouble?” No company would insure an $80 million dollar movie with Lohan in it, let alone carrying it. Last but not least:  the girl’s too skinny to look great naked.

(topnews)

Keira Knightly.

It’s hard to believe that Knightly is only 24. In fact, I don’t think I do believe it. Regardless, the Pros:  Knightly really is striking, she speaks the Queen’s English and, as we can clearly see, looks great when doused with water. Imagine that in zero gravity! Her sexuality’s all in her teeth, but that’s okay with me because I like sexy teeth. Cons:  even when she’s playing a crank-smokin’ shotgun-packin’ hunter of bounty, she comes off as upperclass English and upperclass English ladies aren’t known for driving men, or spacemen, wild. She’s never had a naive moment in all her “24″ years, could no sooner pull off all the “oh hellos” or “oh Pygars” than I could and, like Lohan, is a bit too ectomorphic to look great naked. If she were willing to go all De Niro for the role, spend three months in Tuscany, maybe we could talk.

(thethrowdown)

Kristen Stewart.

There’s a great moment in the director’s commentary of Requiem for a Dream. It’s when Jennifer Connolly appears on-screen for the first time. There’s a pause in the commentary, and then Darren Aronofsky goes, “Ahh, Jennifer.” All I can say is, “Ahh, Kristen.” Pros:  when the aging hippie in Into the Wild said, “That poor girl’s gonna jump on a fence post,” he was onto something. Stewart’s got a twinkle in her eye that makes Fonda’s Barbarella seem like a lady with a headache. She’s also about as counter-culture as they come these days, embracing the sort of alterna-stuff Southern and his gang pretty much invented. If the new film is to be anything like the old film, she’s the only girl here who could bring in the funk (Stewart smoking “the essence of man?” You bet). I also have a feeling that, given the right opportunity, the girl would drop trow in a second (I could be projecting). Cons:  that twinkle smothers any naivete she may actually possess. The “oh hellos” that came out of her mouth would be laced with irony, and irony was about the only thing Barbarella didn’t do.

(mercibeaucoup.co.uk)

Rachel McAdams.

Without McAdams’ wholesome-but-not-too-wholesome charm, The Wedding Crashers would have gone right off the rails. She’s the meat of the Guy Ritchie-Sherlock Holmes sandwich we’ll all be choking on soon (Downey Jr. and Law are the bread). Pros:  more than any other woman here, McAdam would bring sweetness to the role. Fonda’s Barbarella was almost shockingly nice, given that everybody kept tying her up and trying to kill her when they weren’t trying to **** her. In the looks department, McAdams is truly gifted. Cons:  despite the provocation to our left, I have doubts that McAdams could fully embrace Barbarella’s voracious sexual appetite. Would she take it all off? Ultimately, she may be too nice. On the other hand, if she did embrace it, if she did take it all off, the results could be amazing. Theaters would combust! Women would yell “fire” and men wouldn’t so much as glance at the exits.

(gunaxin)

Eva Green.

Green means go. If I ran a magazine (Harvkey® For the Discerning Reader), Eva Green would be the “Sexiest Woman Alive” every single year. For…. Ever. Seriously. If this creature walked into my diner I wouldn’t be able to serve her a donut. I’d probably drool on myself (woman find that charming, right?). As Vesper Lynd she was the only “bond girl” in 44 years to capture the 007 heart. Even women find her so stunning that they can’t be mad at her for being so stunning. Pros:  she’s not shy. She spent most of The Dreamers sans couture. She’s unspeakably sexy, or did we already cover that? Of all the woman here, it’s Green who audiences would buy as a wrecker of space age sex pianos. Cons:  she’s probably too sexy actually. Green is sex. It’s best illustrated in this handy equation:

Eva Green = Sex

And if naivete has ever even approached her, it scampered off to die in a hole. Sadly, she’s got little B.O. clout. Though, give her an hour in a room with the money men and it wouldn’t matter. She’d get the Green light.

(all picture)

Katherine Heigl.

As Grey’s Anatomy’s Dr. Stevens, Heigl’s been making men swallow some pretty sexy medicine for four years now. And she was fun in Knocked Up, though no one but paunchy slackers bought her as an incredibly beautiful woman who falls in love with Seth Rogen. Pros:  that same sexy-fun combo she brought to Knocked Up. Though ridiculously beautiful, Heigl somehow manages to still seem approachable (the exact qualtity the Apatow boys banked on), and Barbarella is nothing if not approachable. And access:  she’s the only woman here besides Fonda who has actually worked with the new guy who’s replacing Rodriguez at the helm of the film. Cons:  some of her career choices make me wonder who’s driving the bus, Heigl or her illiterate agent? She followed the enormously successful Knocked Up with the lukewarm and formulaic 27 Dresses (which she carried through charm and charm alone), and she’s following that with what looks like the lukewarm and formulaic The Ugly Truth. We’ll know in six weeks.

(zimbio)

Anne Hathaway.

Jenny Lumet, daughter of the great Sidney and screenwriter of Rachel Getting Married, said Hathaway was “open” and “hungry.” I couldn’t agree more. Look at those features. The mouth! The eyes! Yes they’re beautiful, but they are also enormous. So. The Pros:  her appetite. Hathaway is insatiable. She wouldn’t just match Fonda’s “up for it” attitude, she’d beat it. She’d knock the sex out of the sex park with a sex stick. I could see Hathaway really pushing the envelope on a new Barbarella, maybe even into the X-rated no man’s land (not that they’d ever go there; this ain’t France, people!). In a relatively brief period, she’s proven to be not just a great actress, but one of the best working today. Her success is really pretty amazing. She’ll soon be seen in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and has, in a stroke of perfect casting, signed on to play actress/singer/addict Judy Garland in a film based on the biography, Get Happy: The Life of Judy Garland, in which, I’m told, Hathaway will sing. Hathaway does nothing half-assed. I think that first Academy Award’s looking a little lonely. In addition to bringing a big appetite to a new Barbarella, Hathaway could, like McAdams, bring some sweetness along as well, because another thing about that wide-open face of hers? Trust. She’s got it. And she’s a good enough actress to make us believe she’s naive. Undoubtedly this newfangled Barb will rely more on the sci than the sex ($80 million buys a big bucket of CG and a contractual stipulation to deliver a PG-rated film), and it would be fun to see Hathaway tap her inner Sigourney for some Ripley-esque ass-kicking. I think she’d be up for that. Cons? Are there any? I don’t think there are. Hathaway’s the one. She even beats McGowan. Dear Hollywood:  cast her now.