The misdirection of Sarah Jessica Parker
We wish we hadn't, to be honest.
Carrie Bradshaw was both the best and worst thing that ever happened to Sarah Jessica Parker. Few actors fall into the “role of a lifetime,” inhabiting a single character so perfectly that they – actor & creation – become more or less indistinguishable. SJP played Carrie Bradshaw on HBO’s Sex and the City for six years and, with the first (awful) SATC movie behind us and another on our doorstep, she’s managed to do the one thing that she should not have done: Keep Carrie Bradshaw alive.
It takes time for people to forget. SATC had a pretty significant cultural impact. As we move into a new decade the show’s significance is finally fading, thanks in no small part to the TV evolution that it helped usher in. Post-SATC shows like Mad Men, Weeds, Big Love, and Dexter have continued to push television in new directions. There have been episodes of Mad Men that wouldn’t have been out of place in the multiplex, almost, whereas SATC will always be chained to the 4 x 3 box from whence it came. SATC simply doesn’t fit the big screen. Even devout fan-girls (and their grumpy men) know this now. Yet, SATC 2: Electric Boogaloo will be striking soon, another nail in the shiny pink coffin.
But even if SATC had been pronounced dead for good back in ‘04, it wouldn’t have been easy for Sarah Jessica Parker to transition. I understand her decision to exploit her cultural capitol and go all entrepreneurial on our asses. But her choices of what to hock come right out of Carrie Bradshaw’s closet. Look! Carrie sells perfume! Look! Carrie keeps showing up at NYC events looking all pretty!
Image via Wikipedia
Follow that with a string of bad film choices and you start to wonder if Parker reads the scripts that cross her desk, or if she gave her agent the power of “yes.” If you’re gonna let your agent say “yes” you better have an agent who can read. I’m not sure that Peter Levine, Parker’s rep over at that little mom-and-pop shop CAA, can. If so, he wouldn’t have allowed client Natalie Portman to do V for Vendetta. Or client Sandra Bullock to make… well, anything. Or Charlie Sheen to go medieval on his wife. Ohp, sorry, that’s “to allegedly go medieval on his wife.” But, you say, he also reps Meryl Streep! WTF!? To which I say, Meryl Streep, a Yale trained actress who has always been (at least until lately) very choosy about her roles, reads her own damn scripts.
Parker’s first film post-SATC was The Family Stone, which may have looked good on paper. Diane Keaton? Rachel McAdams? Luke Wilson? Sign me up! But wait, what’s this? Craig T. Nelson? Who, the TV guy? And a writer-director with only one film under his belt? Hmm… as a (re)launching pad into big-time cinema, it was a poor choice. Had it been good, of course, that wouldn’t have mattered.
Cover via Amazon
Next came the downright dumb pairing of SJP with box-office poison Matthew McConaughey in the aggressively formulaic movie, Failure to Launch. McConaughey will do anything. The guy just wants enough cash to fill up his Jetstream and eat a few fish tacos. Even shut-ins in Kansas know that McConaughey is a crapaholic. But somehow SJP didn’t know this about him, even after a stretch of stomach hurting flicks like How to Loose a Guy in 10 Days, Tiptoes, Sahara, and Two For the Money. And Parker’s agent? Did he know? Sure. He just didn’t give a shit. It’s not his career he’s wrecking.
You can see, then, where 2007’s Spinning Into Butter, came from. SJP had a little freak-out and Levine rustled her up some indie cred. It worked for Bruce Willis, right? True, but Willis got his cred in a little picture called Pulp Fiction, whereas SJP got hers with Mark Brokaw, an untested first-timer. What is it about SJP and untested first-timers? Run away, Sarah, run away.
Smart People was actually a decent movie. Not great, but decent. Though again SJP went with another untested first-timer at the helm, she was smart enough to surround herself with great, or at least interesting, actors: Dennis Quaid, Thomas Haden Church, and Ellen Page. I’m not sure that anyone bought SJP’s “Dr. Hartigan” here any more than they bought SJP’s Ivy League “Dean Daniels” in Butter, but it wasn’t an embarrassment. And if her previous choices had been good, no one would have looked twice.
Image via Wikipedia
Then came the SATC feature. When asked “Why now?” Michael Patrick King said he finally felt compelled. He locked himself in a desert shack (more likely, the Palm Springs Four Seasons) and wrote his little heart out. And this was the result!? Had it been an episode it would have been sub-par, but it wasn’t an episode, it was a “movie,” bloated to 2 hours and forced to fit a 16 x 9 rectangle. The stretch marks showed.
Which brings us to Parker’s latest, in theaters now (though surely not for long, having made only $16 million in two weeks): Did You Hear About The Morgans? Perhaps having learned her untested first-timer lesson, Parker went with Marc Lawrence, of Two Weeks Notice and Music & Lyrics fame. So, perhaps, lesson learned, though not learned well. It’s not enough that the person with the camera has commanded it before. They need to have commanded it well. Music & Lyrics should have told Parker something about Lawrence the director. He made Hugh Grant stink. Run away, Sarah, run away.
Parker should not be a romantic lead. It wasn’t her amour fou that made SATC an institution; it was the female friendships, and the humor. What Parker doesn’t seem to understand is what she’s not:
A romantic lead.
A serious (i.e. Oscar) actress.
Which is not to say she’s not a good actress. She is a good actress. A good character actress. A good, funny, character actress. The problem is that now, post-SATC, she’s also a big-money commodity. It’s hard for big-money commodities, with all their handlers and hangers-on, to take a $1 million dollar paycheck over a $10 million dollar paycheck, but that’s exactly what Parker should be doing.
Image by AFP/Getty Images via Daylife
Even though Jennifer Aniston’s post-Friends career has been rocky at best, Parker should study it, because about half the time Aniston makes a fairly good choice. Friends With Money was good; it was an ensemble piece in which she surrounded herself with great actresses and actually, you know, acted herself. And it was made by a genuine indie auteur. Management, though not good, was still an interesting choice. A romantic comedy starring Steve Zahn? That’s a hell of a lot more inspired than Matthew or Hugh. But then there was He’s Just Not That Into You, Marley & Me, and Love Happens, bad choices, and bad films, all.
But Aniston’s upcoming roster shows, maybe, a slightly more interesting mixed bag. Perhaps she’s finally discovering “her thing,” after 6 years. There’s a high concept action-romance with Gerard Butler called The Bounty Hunter (note: Gerard Butler is hot); The Baster, a fertility comedy co-starring Jason Bateman (note: Jason Bateman is hot); The Goree Girls, a musical western to be directed by the man behind the recent, and very good, Grey Gardens (note: the director of Grey Gardens is hot); and Pretend Wife, from Zohan’s Dennis Dugan, and co-starring, you guessed it, Adam Sandler (note: Dennis Dugan is hot). Hmm… what do these projects have in common?
Parker needs to pay attention. Super successful millionaire actress entrepreneurs only get so long to discover their second “thing” in this life. And it sure as hell isn’t this:
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I’ve never understood what the fuss was about SJP and still don’t. She’s not a particularly good actress and she’s not quirky enough in style to be a true character actor type. The best thing she ever did was the flaky paramour opposite Steve Martin in “L.A. Story”. I always thought her co-stars on SATC were far more interesting than she was. Now her husband, on the other hand, is awesome and has stayed true to his Broadway roots.
Not a very true slant imo.
Since when does having successful box office equate failure and bad decisions on anyone part?
You may not like the actresses you cited personally but a lot of people obviously disagree and put their money behind them to show it. The viewing audiences.
I personally loved ” Sex and the City” and no I had never watched the television series.
As well as the other films and actresses you cited less Aniston. However she does have her fan base.
I think the point is that I DO like these actresses (both of them in this case), I just don’t think that SJP has been making good choices since leaving SATC and I think it’s hurting her. Sure she’ll continue to have the perfumes and the other stuff, but if she doesn’t start making some better choices soon, IMO, as one poster says, the offers may well start to dry up. All I gotta say is, if you loved the movie SATC you better rush out right now and buy the SATC all-seasons box set. It’s so much better your head will probably pop off.
In response to another comment. See in context »You may not like it but SJP’s movies make money. This is also the case with the many of movies you felt were bad choices for JA.
Investors get strong if not sometimes great returns on their investments.(V for Vendetta was also profitable).
I would not write off “Morgans” just yet it’s numbers have climbed and it has yet to be released internationally. I think it will also be a profitable venture before all is said and done.
Actresses such as these have a strong and loyal fan base who are emotionally connected them from their previous exposure investors count on this.,It’s business.
Because film critics don’t seem to get this they are becoming redundant by their own actions.
I purchased SATC months ago so no need to rush and my head did not pop off as I enjoyed both genres equally for what they had to offer.
In response to another comment. See in context »The best thing she ever did was the flaky paramour opposite Steve Martin in “L.A. Story”.
On my yes. She really should have just retired after she played SanDeE*.
“Big S, little a, little n, big D, little e, big E.” Perfect.
And even more perfect?
“We’re staying at the Pollo Del Mar.”
In response to another comment. See in context »While I cannot disagree that SITC was an influential and successful show, I never could get past the intense focus of its characters on the material: the shoes, the bags, etc. It was all so fucking shallow and SJPs ‘Carrie’ was the standard-bearer for this materialism. But that’s a sidebar.
She’s been at the helm of a ton of crap and really the only person to blame is SJP. Agents don’t make the ultimate decisions. The actors do. My guess is she’s not getting tons of offers now. Just look at Hugh Grant’s utterly blank visage on the Morgans poster. He knows he’s sitting on a steaming pile of shit. He’s not even trying. It’s actually quite funny.
And while we’re on the subject of shit, who the hell is Hugh Grant’s agent?? About A Boy was pretty terrific, but since then it’s been a downhill skid.
Jesus Christ. I just looked at that SITC 2 trailer. I rest my fucking case. The titles are fucking diamond-encrusted. I just threw up in my mouth.
This has got to be the oddest most preposterous piece I’ve seen in some time. It’s being billed elsewhere on the web as Sarah Jessica needing to ’study Aniston,’ so I decided to check out the piece based on that sheer lunacy alone.
I’m confused – you site a few of Aniston’s choices as somehow being worthwhile study material, yet admit the movies suck for the most part? Since you feel SJP is talented, why not suggest an actress who like Parker is posessed of talent, and who selects really good material, as opposed to Aniston who fails on both counts.
I don’t get the comparison/contrast you have going here – is it because they resemble each other to a certain extent? I’ll admit there are a few similarities, but that’s a lame reason to suggest that Parker follow in Aniston’s sloppy untalented boring footprints.
Let’s get real: Parker is a Tony nominated, 8 time nominated & 4 time winner of the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a comedy, her most recent nomination 4 years ago was for Best Actress in a film (comedy), ‘The Family Stone’ (something Aniston has NEVER done, despite acting in crappy movies for well over 15 years) Additionally, Parker has won 2 Emmys, and 2 Screen Actors Guild Awards, and won best ensemble SAG award for ‘State in Main.’
She also will executive produce an HBO series this year, and will produce her own Indie film, ‘Spinning Into Butter,’ in which she starred – all this while being a wife, mother of three, and yes, an extremely successful entrepreneur.
I’m sorry, but I think it’s a personal insult and a hell of a bad joke to suggest she study, of all people, Aniston.
To learn how to do what, exactly?
Stage faux-mances in the tabloids, play second fiddle to big male comedy stars and dogs, then ride the coattails of real movie stars like ‘Brangelina,’ all the while seeking sympathy in the court of public opinion by demonizing them everytime she has a movie/project to promote? …and this, THIS is something that should be emulated?
Sarah, please keep doing what you’re doing – you’re an inspiration starring in, and executive producing such a box office smash as SATC – we believe in you. Unlike some actresses, you never come across as desperate, and as if someone ‘owes,’ you a movie career.
You let your work and talent speak for itself, and if box office is a bellweather your fans affirmed why they want to see you in a favorite role.
Truella, I don’t think it’s an odd comparison at all. We have two primarily character actresses from extremely successful television shows who made the leap to film. One of them — Ms. Parker — has starred in flop after flop; the other — Ms. Aniston — has had some marginal success.
The fact that you define Ms. Aniston’s acting as “sloppy untalented [and] boring” exposes your prejudices. It’s fine if you like SJP, but can you — with an straight face — say she’s had a successful film? IMO, that’s what the post was about.
In response to another comment. See in context »Truella, I’m afraid I’m gonna have to side with jjburch on this one. While I appreciate the dialog, and say “keep it coming!” I don’t understand what you find preposterous about my piece.
I can’t control how my stuff is billed elsewhere (the copy/paste/contextualize thing has become too easy and pervasive and far too hard to keep up with, let along attempt to correct). But it seems like you may be placing too much emphasis on the Aniston comparison. This may be a problem with the contextualization, because referencing Aniston was just the end of the article. It wasn’t everything. But even so, I defend the idea, because Aniston, though of course not all of her choices have been sound, has consistently opted to work with ESTABLISHED people. This is my main point about SJP, whose talent I clearly recognize (if I thought she was a no-talent hack I wouldn’t bother writing about her): Why, at the top of her game, pockets stuffed with golden tickets, has she chosen to work with untested filmmakers in a string of mediocre (or worse) pictures? I’m sure that SJP could get Nicole Holofcener on the phone in two seconds. So why doesn’t she? As jjburch points out, both these women are comedic actresses who left wildly successful, career-defining TV shows, and have struggled to shed those characters. Strange comparison? Hardly.
And I couldn’t care less about their personal lives. I never once referenced the personal lives, or tabloid exploits, of either actress. It’s uninteresting to me and not what I do here. I still contend that if SJP continues to say “sure!” to the types of roles she’s taken on so far (SATC movies included), I’m afraid that it won’t be long before you start to see in your favorite girl some of that desperation you loath in others.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mike, why so disingenuous? The “contextualization,” is your own, you decided on the Aniston comparison, so of course YOU control how your stuff is ‘billed elsewhere,’ as you state. If you hadn’t done it, it wouldn’t BE. You knew exactly what you were doing which is why a pic of Aniston’s mug is front and center in the body of your column. Who are you kidding?
Also, don’t look now, but you’re making my point: Yes, I AGREE. BOTH actresses “have STRUGGLED to shed their TV characters.” So again, please tell me why you are advocating Parker emulate a STRUGGLING actress?? (Your words). How about one that is NOT struggling? Wouldn’t that be novel? LOL
To underscore the point that YOU have made FOR ME: I’ve read lots of reviews that say Aniston brings ‘Rachel Green,’ to almost every role she takes on, I’ve YET to read that Parker is ‘Carrie Bradshaw,’ in her film roles, and as I stated, she was nominated for her roles in at least 2 films that have received critical acclaim come awards time (Family Stone, State and Main), that’s 2 more than Aniston (read ZILCH) – again, WHY the comparison??
IMO, Parker is posessed of a skill set that Aniston does not have. Aniston was never funny to me, she was more or less the straight man on Friends, while the others got the laughs – it was a straight up ensemble sit-com, complete w/ laughtrack in which, IMO, she was the weakest link.
Parker was the lead in an HBO dramedy, and she’s got about 25 Golden Globe, Emmy, and SAG noms and wins to prove it.
Look, if what you were aiming for was some kind of catfight that draws your readers in, well it worked – here I am (as well as several others) commenting because of YOUR side by side ludicrous comparison with the worse than mediocre overexposed coattailing Aniston. Parker could act in about 25 more sh*tty movies and she will STILL be better than Aniston, you know it and I know it. I’m just appalled at such a ridiculous comparison – saying Parker needs to study such a non-talent. Since WHEN did it become admirable to only act with high profile big male comedy stars as ‘the girlfriend’ or ‘wife.’ After 25+ years in the business, this is what you think Parker’s ‘bar’ should be. Way to aim low.
Look, when you are claiming constructive criticism, the whole idea, is to make the person you are critiquing and expressing such concern for, BETTER AT WHAT THEY DO, not worse.
I guarantee you, that NO ONE familiar with these two actresses, is going to slap you on the back affirming your points and say, ‘Hell yeah Mike, Sarah needs to get a ‘Rumor Has It,’ she needs a ‘Derailed,’ she needs a ‘Love Happens.’
When making a comparison/contrast, the idea is to be PLAIN – and OBVIOUS, so the reader can see that, ‘OH YEAAAH, she needs a GOOD role, like THAT, in a GOOD movie like THAT, i.e., maybe score the Vera Fermiglia role in ‘Up in the Air,’ or achieve the box office success of Sandra Bullock – land a ‘Blind Side,’ or even land a supporting spot opposite Meryl Streep in something like ‘It’s Complicated.’
These are all things that it would make sense to heed, as you’d be suggesting things that have very OBVIOUSLY proven BETTER than her own choices – and that she could easily have slipped into and not only made her own, but possibly made it even better.
Yet, bizarrely, you are suggesting the ‘misdirected’ Parker get back on the straight and narrow by emulating Aniston. I’m sorry, maybe I missed the day when Aniston received critical acclaim consensus for a performance or a film. I could have sworn she has been PANNED in almost everything, as have her films – THAT is why your column was some BIZARRE as helll bullsh*t.
I have to wonder if you’re doing ’somebody’ a favor. Because frankly, it makes no sense otherwise.
Well, SOMEONE certainly KNOWS how to use their CAPS LOCK key to EMPHASIZE different WORDS in their POST.
Mike, I think you’ve inadvertently angered Sarah Jessica Parker’s, 1) mother, 2) publicist, 3) agent, or 4) husband. Please be more careful next time.
Also, NEVER NEVER NEVER make an offhand comparison between Sarah Jessica Parker and Jennifer Aniston, despite its obvious saliency.
In response to another comment. See in context »Truella, I take it back. Don’t keep it coming.
In response to another comment. See in context »Unfortunately, I think we may see another appearance. Only this time, I hope after a few deep breaths, a martini, and a Xanax.
By the way — and not that it will make any difference to Ms. Parker’s mom — but I noticed Ms. Aniston has eight projects in development. Ms. Parker: two.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah Jen, because we all know, it’s all about quantity, not quality, right? Oh lookie, Jean Claude Van Damme has 10 projects in development, and Johnny Depp has 3. That means Jean Claude is sooooo much more amazingly talented, why just look at all the work he’s getting. I heard he and Jen are doing Rumor Has It 2: Drop Kick. That can ONLY be an improvement.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yeah, says the guy who thinks actresses and audiences alike need to steep themselves in more rancid crap movies like ’sh*t happens.’ Do us all a favor turn in your blogger badge and sit. the. fck. down.
The thing is, tru, I don’t really think either actress is overwhelmingly wonderful, but it’s been most amusing watching you completely lose your shit because your MOST FAVE BESTEST ACTRESS got compared to someone you think is sub-par.
Next. Time. Take. A. Deep. Breath. Before. Posting. And. Calm. The. Fuck. Down.
You’ve failed to address my main point yet again. My enthusiasm for Parker aside (and it’s less about me loving Parker to death, and more about me being sick of Aniston’s overexposure for her crap for the last several years) — WHY, would you compare an okay actress to a sub-par actress? Why compare two mediocre actresses? Who will you be comparing next? Patti Heaton and Delta Burke? I’ll be on the edge of my seat for that stimulating important discourse. Why are you so eager to waste our lives as readers, and your life as a writer actually trying to make the point that Burke should ’school’ Heaton, that Romano should ’school’ Kevin James, that Natalie should ’school’ Tootie or that Aniston should school SJP? Where is the artistic imperative that compels you to do that? You sir/madam are morons extraordinaire.
Truella, your sound and fury is quite extraordinarily misplaced.
Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Melissa Leo, Judy Dench, Tilda Swinton… THESE are actresses worth fighting about.
Sarah Jessica Parker? A perfectly good actress, sure, but not the END ALL BE-ALL. Not the original Miss Jesus. Not a cure for cancer. Come on. Really. Take the advice you’ve been given and chill.
I invited you into my house and you, basically, screwed my sister and took a crap on my rug. And the rug really made the room, if you know what I mean, and I think you do. T/S isn’t the place for snarky bitch-fests and you’ve dragged us into one after I responded to your histrionics with respect. The Closely Watched Lord (me) giveth your ability to comment in this arena, and the Lord can taketh it away.
In response to another comment. See in context »