PDA

View Full Version : Is Hilary Swank becoming the new Queen of American actresses?


Jakeev
Mar 1st, 2005, 10:30 AM
I was very thrilled to see Hilary Swank win her second Oscar Sunday night. I read somewhere that she is only the third actress behind Jodie Foster and Luise Ranier to become a multiple winner by the age of 30. (Bette Davis become one by 31)

She seems to choose her roles rather well, but the one thing I noticed with her, is that she does not seem to get as much publicity as say Julia Roberts or even be compared to greatness to say Meryl Streep.

But Hilary's diversity as an actress to me is incredible. Not sure if she is headed toward superstardom, but I am hoping her latest success will help her lead her on that path.

Any thoughts on Hilary? Is she destined to become America's most respected actress?

Sam L
Mar 1st, 2005, 11:04 AM
Diversity? Her two Oscar winning roles are very similar. They're not feminine and both very tragic roles.

Aside from those two, what has she done? Nothing. :shrug:

Personally, I think she fluked this one in a weak year for Best Actresses and lucky to be in a very highly buzzed film.

You're right, she's nowhere near the Streeps and Roberts. She's not even up there with Kidmans and Zellwegers.

vertigo
Mar 1st, 2005, 12:19 PM
^No, you're right She's far better than the Roberts, the Kidman's and the Zellwegers...

She's not as commercial as those ladies as her films tend to be less main stream- just listen to her accent! Or look at "Boy's Don't Cry" in which she is incredible. The content, and the story are just not commercial, hence its an indie film. This 'indie film' argument doesn't work for Million Dollar, however the content of the film does. (Don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it).

Personally I think it's great that she's not as 'commercial' as the rest of these ladies because as far as I'm concerned that means she's making amazing films that are pushing at societies boundaries. To me, commercial = dull.

Go Hilary!

jrm
Mar 1st, 2005, 01:24 PM
Hardly ... only two roles that were noticed by public brought her an Oscar. It was strange from Academy to award someone twice in such short time ... you would think someone who won two Academy Awards for Best leading role would be regarded as one of the best ... we all know that's not the case!

kabuki
Mar 1st, 2005, 01:36 PM
My thoughts-

1. Her acceptance speeech this time around irked me for its length and banality. She was just honored in such an amazing way, and she wastes her speech, all 2 hours of it, thanking people (lawyers, agents, etc) rather than saying anything interesting or revealing.

2. After Boys Dont Cry, it irked me that she ran around screaming at the top of her lungs, be it in interviews, ads, pictures, on runways, "I"M A GIRL! LOOK AT ME!! I CAN PLAY A GIRL TOO!! HEY, I'M A GIRL!!!" I know it is the truth, she is a girl, she can play a girl, but it bothered me that she clearly wanted so strongly to distance herself from a role that helped her so tremendously, and that had such deep meaning for so many, not only for being a real person, but for being TRULY tragic.

My two cents.

Crazy Canuck
Mar 1st, 2005, 01:51 PM
I thought part of her acceptance speech was kind of cute. You know, when she said "I'm just a girl from a trailor park" and almost started crying? :p

Anyways, I really like her, in spite of myself. For some reason I want to not, but I can't help it.

kabuki
Mar 1st, 2005, 02:02 PM
Personally the "I'm just a girl from a trailer park" comment irked me. It seemed so calculating to me... Oh, well. Maybe I'm just a cynic. :lol:

vertigo
Mar 1st, 2005, 02:24 PM
[QUOTE=Crazy Canuck]I thought part of her acceptance speech was kind of cute. You know, when she said "I'm just a girl from a trailor park" and almost started crying? :p
QUOTE]

I also found that bit lovely. To me she seemed humble, and it sounded genuine... She's done some cool things with her fame in that she supports the Harvey Milk school for LGT in New York (I think).

However, on the whole I agree with the earlier comments about her interviews and her 1st oscar speech..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I just love her accent though. My goodness, that is cute.

Sam L
Mar 1st, 2005, 02:57 PM
^No, you're right She's far better than the Roberts, the Kidman's and the Zellwegers...

She's not as commercial as those ladies as her films tend to be less main stream- just listen to her accent! Or look at "Boy's Don't Cry" in which she is incredible. The content, and the story are just not commercial, hence its an indie film. This 'indie film' argument doesn't work for Million Dollar, however the content of the film does. (Don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it).

Personally I think it's great that she's not as 'commercial' as the rest of these ladies because as far as I'm concerned that means she's making amazing films that are pushing at societies boundaries. To me, commercial = dull.

Go Hilary!
No, she's not commercial. She's PURE Oscarbait. :rolleyes:

She doesn't have range.

She tried period piece and it fell flat on her face. Affair of the Necklace?

She tried blockbuster and it fell falt on her face. The Core?

vertigo
Mar 1st, 2005, 03:04 PM
I'm scarred for life by the branding scene in 'the affair of the necklace'. Both of these films suck not because of Hilary but because the scripts sucked. Still they show that she has had major 'blips' in judgement.

As for range, I'd have to disagree- how about her comedic turn in Karate Kid 4 ;) ?

TimBo
Mar 1st, 2005, 03:11 PM
The one thing she has that not many of the actresses of today have is that she is not afraid to really change her look for a part.
In Boys Dont Cry... she basically looked like a boy and in Million Dollar Baby she bulked up and had a very athletic body. In her roles.. she doesnt look all glamed up etc.
My opinion is when you see an actress playing a part.. if you forget who that person is, then they truely become that part. When I see Julie Roberts or Halle Berry.. in the back of my mind I still know its them coz their appearance never changes, but Hilary's appearance and whole mind set changes and you forget that she's an actress.

*Just my opinion... like assholes everyone has one.

silverwhite
Mar 1st, 2005, 03:46 PM
I found her really endearing in Million Dollar Baby, so I'm on her side. ;)

As to whether she can act in a range of roles, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Scobby- Doo
Mar 1st, 2005, 05:41 PM
I started to love her when she was playing in Beverly Hills 90210 :p And I wish her all the best, becaus ahe's really great actress. She really deserve those 2 Oscars, much more than Julia Roberts, Zeta-Jones and many many others whos in my opinion are just "stars" not actress.

decemberlove
Mar 1st, 2005, 06:01 PM
She seems to choose her roles rather well, but the one thing I noticed with her, is that she does not seem to get as much publicity as say Julia Roberts or even be compared to greatness to say Meryl Streep.

But Hilary's diversity as an actress to me is incredible.

:confused:

she seems to choose her roles rather well???

red dust, the affair of the necklace, THE CORE, the next karate kid? look at her filmography.

her three best roles to date are basically all the same... boys don't cry, iron jawed angels, and million dollar baby.

she lacks range and diversity as an actress. i'd like to see her in a GOOD role where she has to wear a dress and brush her hair.

she's one of the most overrated actresses right now. she does two good, sappy oscar movies and suddenly she one of the better actresses of our time?

she is no meryl streep.

the oscars are shit at rewarding real talent. hilary's second win is just another example to add to the long list of fuck-ups the academy has made.

MAURO
Mar 1st, 2005, 06:06 PM
she will be one of the great and big actress of 2010-2020 with Kirsten Dunst and Julia Stiles

shap_half
Mar 1st, 2005, 06:19 PM
Hilary, while a great actress, have chosen two roles that have given her a lot of critical acclaim. Other than that, there's nothing else.

Bacardi
Mar 1st, 2005, 06:30 PM
Damn she's come a long way since the days of 'The Karate Kid III' :haha:

She's an OK actress, I think it's more the roles she gets picked for that wins her the awards.

harloo
Mar 1st, 2005, 06:49 PM
I like Hillary Swank, but honestly she doesn't have a great body of work. She managed to chose the two same roles which were great choices. I don't believe in luck so she deserved her awards, but she is not a great just yet.

_LuCaS_
Mar 1st, 2005, 07:31 PM
She has talent, but she's still far from the divas

Zummi
Mar 1st, 2005, 09:06 PM
The fact that she is now a two-time Academy Award winner is enough to ensure she will be respected for the rest of her acting career.

She has not, however, demonstrated much diversity in her acting roles so far. But she is still young and has time to develop.

And I also disagree that she's not a publicity whore - the girl was all over the place campaigning for this latest Oscar. And she's very often photographed at fashion shows, award ceremonies, openings etc. etc.

Hurley
Mar 1st, 2005, 09:16 PM
She is excellent in "Boys Don't Cry," and I'm sure she is excellent in MDB as well, but one has to admit that these two roles are very similar.

She completely deserved the Oscar in 1999 and I'm sure no one could say she gave a bad performance this year, and if she so happened to give two stellar performances there is no reason she shouldn't have two Oscars. It's just as bad to NOT give someone an Oscar because "they already have one" as it is to give someone an Oscar because they were snubbed in the past. Anyone who is against, say, Morgan Freeman or Cate Blanchett getting "career awards" this year should be against strictly voting against Hilary because she "already has one." Right? Right.

Having said that, as many people pointed out above, she's tried a few other roles, and she hasn't gotten similar acclaim, so, as of right now, she doesn't seem to have much range -- what she can do well she does very, very well, but she is lacking in other areas.

Now, having said THAT, in her defense, she's only been in two good movies (not that I've seen the others...not that I'd want to!). Perhaps if she got in a good period piece or a good action film, we'd see what she can do. So I guess the jury's still out.

So, to sum up...two good performances = two Oscars. It happens. I mean I love Kate Winslet and she is consistently excellent, but I can't say that she deserved to turn any of her four nominations into a win because none of them were the "best" performances of the competition. Does she have more range than Hilary? Absolutely. Is her career more exceptional? Duh.

But that's not what the Oscar is for. They are for single performances.

And, so, if you take that one step further, you can't judge the overall ability of an actor based on the Oscars. And why would you!

shap_half
Mar 1st, 2005, 09:33 PM
Having won two Oscars is amazing, but there are a few actresses out there who have been nominated for several very disparate roles that just show great range. And these actresses may have won only one or no Oscar over their careers.

Renee Zellweger for example has show great range over her selected roles. There are probably five roles that Zellweger are best known for:

Jerry McGuire (nominated for a SAG award for Best Supporting Actress)
Nurse Betty (nominated and won a Best Comedic Actress Golden Globe)
Bridget Jones's Diary (nominated for a SAG, Golden Globe, BAFTA, and Oscar for Best Actress)
Chicago (nominated and won a Best Actress SAG and Golden Globe and nominated for Best Actress BAFTA and Oscar)
Cold Mountain (nominated and won a Best Supporting SAG, Golden Globe, BAFTA, and Oscar)

All five roles are quite different from one another. She may only have 1 Oscar (and some argue that she should have won for her role in Chicago over Kidman), but she's shown great mastery of roles that really rival the winners.

There's also Julianne Moore (who should already have an Oscar right now). She's shown great range and have gotten great accolades over the years. Yet she does not have an Oscar.

Boogie Nights - nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Golden Globe, SAG, and Oscar
End of the Affair - nominated for a Best Actress SAG, Oscar, BAFTA, and Golden Globe
Magnolia - nominate for a Best Supporting Actress SAG
The Hours - nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar, BAFTA, and SAG
Far From Heaven - nominated for a Best Actress SAG, Golden Globe, and Oscar

Sam L
Mar 1st, 2005, 10:19 PM
The one thing she has that not many of the actresses of today have is that she is not afraid to really change her look for a part.
In Boys Dont Cry... she basically looked like a boy and in Million Dollar Baby she bulked up and had a very athletic body. In her roles.. she doesnt look all glamed up etc.
My opinion is when you see an actress playing a part.. if you forget who that person is, then they truely become that part. When I see Julie Roberts or Halle Berry.. in the back of my mind I still know its them coz their appearance never changes, but Hilary's appearance and whole mind set changes and you forget that she's an actress.

*Just my opinion... like assholes everyone has one.
That's the whole complaint I have against her! It's all about changing appearances.

And it's easy for her to change herself because she's an obscure actress. I mean, Julia Roberts is huge, she's a mega star. People are still going to recognize her no matter what.

But yeah that physical change thing, it doesn't mean it's good.

Take Katharine Hepburn, she didn't have to change the way she look drastically to win any of her Oscars.

I want Hilary to prove me that she can get raves or win an Oscar just by looking like herself. The attention should be on her acting, not the way she looks.

~{X}~
Mar 1st, 2005, 10:52 PM
I think she's cool. I have no beef with her haha.

Dana Marcy
Mar 1st, 2005, 11:25 PM
I was very thrilled to see Hilary Swank win her second Oscar Sunday night. I read somewhere that she is only the third actress behind Jodie Foster and Luise Ranier to become a multiple winner by the age of 30. (Bette Davis become one by 31)

She seems to choose her roles rather well, but the one thing I noticed with her, is that she does not seem to get as much publicity as say Julia Roberts or even be compared to greatness to say Meryl Streep.

But Hilary's diversity as an actress to me is incredible. Not sure if she is headed toward superstardom, but I am hoping her latest success will help her lead her on that path.

Any thoughts on Hilary? Is she destined to become America's most respected actress?

I've only seen her Million Dollar Baby, Boys Don't Cry and The Gift. They were all white trash parts and she was very good in all of them. She's respected by her peers but I don't see her becoming the next Julia Roberts or even Sandra Bullock. She may get to their level if she can do one of those chick flicks and people believe her in them and the movie makes a lot of money. But she'd have to make that kind of movie more than once to move to their status.

Sam L
Mar 1st, 2005, 11:40 PM
I've only seen her Million Dollar Baby, Boys Don't Cry and The Gift. They were all white trash parts and she was very good in all of them. She's respected by her peers but I don't see her becoming the next Julia Roberts or even Sandra Bullock. She may get to their level if she can do one of those chick flicks and people believe her in them and the movie makes a lot of money. But she'd have to make that kind of movie more than once to move to their status.
Yeah the point is she's not versatile.

Look, at Julia Roberts. I admire her because after Erin Brockovich she had the balls to try different roles. Challenging roles. Hilary hasn't done that.

Dana Marcy
Mar 1st, 2005, 11:42 PM
Yeah the point is she's not versatile.

Look, at Julia Roberts. I admire her because after Erin Brockovich she had the balls to try different roles. Challenging roles. Hilary hasn't done that.

I like Julia but don't talk about her like she's Meryl Streep. Julia can be the same also. :angel:

CondiLicious
Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:40 AM
I like Hilary. But I'm bitter over the fact she has 2 Oscars and my idol Sigourney Weaver has... none. :( blah!

Sam L
Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:42 AM
I like Hilary. But I'm bitter over the fact she has 2 Oscars and my idol Sigourney Weaver has... none. :( blah!
Yeah. Let's hate Hilary. :mad:

CondiLicious
Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:46 AM
Yeah. Let's hate Hilary. :mad:

What's she got that Sigourney hasn't? (apart from her youth haha)

darren cahill
Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:55 AM
:confused:

she seems to choose her roles rather well???

red dust, the affair of the necklace, THE CORE, the next karate kid? look at her filmography.

her three best roles to date are basically all the same... boys don't cry, iron jawed angels, and million dollar baby.

she lacks range and diversity as an actress. i'd like to see her in a GOOD role where she has to wear a dress and brush her hair.

she's one of the most overrated actresses right now. she does two good, sappy oscar movies and suddenly she one of the better actresses of our time?

she is no meryl streep.

the oscars are shit at rewarding real talent. hilary's second win is just another example to add to the long list of fuck-ups the academy has made.

you go girl! add this to the list of things we have in common!

other coments i'd like to make, someone mentioned how her acceptance speeches are always so long, did anyone notice in all trillion of awards she has won lately, that her speeches always seem to make everyone so uncomfortable? at the SAG awards, i felt like i could literally see people in the audience squirming in their seats, she just slobs so much ass kissing over everyone its so icky. i felt like clint eastwood wanted to knock her lights out at that show, just shut the fuck up already. she just goes a bit overboard in her speeches, the golden globes had some odd choices of words as well, like the over doing of her praise for clint and saying 'in my humble opinion, the role of your lifetime' i dont know, it seems so over done. i just cringe when shes up there.

and the comment, that oscars are for single achievements? since when? it always seems they are giving out awards for every reason but the best role that year, Geraldine Page, Jessica Tandy, both those were not the best that year. Cher won for Moonstruck which i was happy with but there was more to that win that just that movie. Paul Newman for the color of money, Elizabeth Taylor for butterfield 8, i mean, sure there are tons of good wins, but the oscar is about a lot of things, but its seldom just about the acting. it should be, but its not always. theres who was sick this year, who was a nice story (Marlee Matlin anyone?) who has never won but up a ton of times (Al Pacino Scent of a woman)

Scotso
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:37 AM
She is very up and down. She does great movies and then movies like Karate Kid :p

But I like her personality.

Wiggly
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:56 AM
She's not very feminine :rolleyes:

I prefer Reese Whiterspoon or Camreon Diaz :lick: :lol:

$pencer
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:57 AM
Am I the only person who thinks she looks like Matt Damon.....same big mouthful of teeth and same cheekbones. Actually when she was dressed as the boy in Boys Don't Cry it is just pure Matt Damon [for me anyway....no one else ever thinks so].
She's not my favourite at all but she did do well in her two big roles so on the day she was probable winner each time but she is not really a 'star'. If Million Dollar Baby had not been directed by Clint Eastwood would she have got the same hype......not likely.

VivalaSeles
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:17 AM
Annette Bening should have won :sad:

Bacardi
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:26 AM
She'll never be as good as Angelina Jolie :p

AjdeNate!
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:44 AM
2 amazing roles.
2 amazing performances.
2 Oscars.

Maybe she's not the best ever, but in 2 movies she sure gave 2 of the best performances.

Ryan
Mar 2nd, 2005, 03:20 AM
Diversity? Her two Oscar winning roles are very similar. They're not feminine and both very tragic roles.

Aside from those two, what has she done? Nothing. :shrug:

Personally, I think she fluked this one in a weak year for Best Actresses and lucky to be in a very highly buzzed film.

You're right, she's nowhere near the Streeps and Roberts. She's not even up there with Kidmans and Zellwegers.


She's far better than all of them. Julia Roberts is an average actress at best, and Renee Zellwegger is even worse. Nicole Kidman is the best of your list, and Hilary can put far more emotion on the table.

Plus, is it Hilary's fault for choosing great roles? :confused:

shap_half
Mar 2nd, 2005, 04:38 AM
She's far better than all of them. Julia Roberts is an average actress at best, and Renee Zellwegger is even worse. Nicole Kidman is the best of your list, and Hilary can put far more emotion on the table.

Plus, is it Hilary's fault for choosing great roles? :confused:

Welcome to dellusional city.

Hilary has had two great roles. Granted she won an Oscar for both, but both roles demmand the same type of emotional range and both roles are practically the same character. If you're looking for an actress to pretend she's a man, then go for Hilary and she'll win you an Oscar. If that's not the role, don't bother her.

Zellweger and Roberts have gotten acclaim (either a SAG, Oscar, Golden Globe, or BAFTA nomination) for several films portraying varying roles. Hilary's a great actress, but she really isn't as good as Zellweger, Roberts, or Kidman.

Hurley
Mar 2nd, 2005, 04:54 AM
and the comment, that oscars are for single achievements? since when? it always seems they are giving out awards for every reason but the best role that year, Geraldine Page, Jessica Tandy, both those were not the best that year. Cher won for Moonstruck which i was happy with but there was more to that win that just that movie. Paul Newman for the color of money, Elizabeth Taylor for butterfield 8, i mean, sure there are tons of good wins, but the oscar is about a lot of things, but its seldom just about the acting. it should be, but its not always. theres who was sick this year, who was a nice story (Marlee Matlin anyone?) who has never won but up a ton of times (Al Pacino Scent of a woman)

Or you could try to read and comprehend the entire post. Good luck! :D

She is excellent in "Boys Don't Cry," and I'm sure she is excellent in MDB as well, but one has to admit that these two roles are very similar.

She completely deserved the Oscar in 1999 and I'm sure no one could say she gave a bad performance this year, and if she so happened to give two stellar performances there is no reason she shouldn't have two Oscars. It's just as bad to NOT give someone an Oscar because "they already have one" as it is to give someone an Oscar because they were snubbed in the past. Anyone who is against, say, Morgan Freeman or Cate Blanchett getting "career awards" this year should be against strictly voting against Hilary because she "already has one." Right? Right.

Having said that, as many people pointed out above, she's tried a few other roles, and she hasn't gotten similar acclaim, so, as of right now, she doesn't seem to have much range -- what she can do well she does very, very well, but she is lacking in other areas.

Now, having said THAT, in her defense, she's only been in two good movies (not that I've seen the others...not that I'd want to!). Perhaps if she got in a good period piece or a good action film, we'd see what she can do. So I guess the jury's still out.

So, to sum up...two good performances = two Oscars. It happens. I mean I love Kate Winslet and she is consistently excellent, but I can't say that she deserved to turn any of her four nominations into a win because none of them were the "best" performances of the competition. Does she have more range than Hilary? Absolutely. Is her career more exceptional? Duh.

But that's not what the Oscar is for. They are for single performances.

And, so, if you take that one step further, you can't judge the overall ability of an actor based on the Oscars. And why would you!

the jamierbelyea
Mar 2nd, 2005, 04:55 AM
I think she was very lucky to have gotten this role. I mean just look at the list of movies inbetween her last Oscar and this one. They aren't great. Plus she was on 90210 . ;)