Favourite female film characters with brightly coloured hair

Someone I know recently dyed her hair pink. She’d previously had it purple, or was it green or blue? I forget, whatever the colour I remember it looked cool at the time, because, let’s face it, if you’ve got bright hair you’re automatically fifty per cent more interesting than most of us.

I mean… it’s the same with someone with unusual tattoos. Are they more creative? More artistic? A tortured soul? Perhaps they are. I’d like to hope they are. Whether they are or not, I find these artistic additions and enhancements to people’s outward-facing personas to be endlessly fascinating. I get drawn in, like a moth to a flame.

And this got me thinking, as I do, about characters in film with bright hair, as there are a bunch – from Natalie Portman’s stripper in Closer to manic pixie dream girl Ramona Flowers in Scott Pilgrim. I am sure there are lots more, but below are a few I thought I’d pick out.

Who would yours be?

Natalie Portman as Alice in Closer (2004)

Image result for alice natalie portman closer

 

Milla Jovovich as Leeloo in The Fifth Element (1997)

Image result for the fifth element leeloo

 

Angelina Jolie as Gia Curangi in Gia (1998)

Image result for angelina jolie gia pink hair

 

Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Romana Flowers in Scott Pilgrim Vs The World (2010)

Image result for mary elizabeth winstead ramona flowers

 

Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Noni in Beyond The Lights (2014)

Image result for gugu mbatha raw beyond the lights

 

Lea Seydoux as Emma in Blue Is The Warmest Colour (2013)

Image result for blue hair film

 

Kate Winslet as Clara in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Image result for eternal sunshine of the spotless mind

The rise of the action woman

Recently I was listening to a podcast with Alicia Vikander, one where she talked about her role as the new Lara Croft and how the character has been rebooted as a more realistic heroine for modern women.

She mentioned how it seems there’s momentum these days, indeed appetite, towards high quality, well put together, action-driven films that feature a female lead. She mentioned Charlize Theron in Atomic Blonde and others, which got me thinking, is there momentum? Was there a specific moment that was the turning point?

Thinking back, Angelina Jolie has done the bulk of the heavy lifting since about 2000, with Charlize Theron playing her part too. But did they pave the way for the films we see now or has this been a longer time coming?

For me, I think the ’90s are a good place to start.
So below are the films and the various time periods that, for better or worse, I consider to have had a hand in where we are now. I’ve listed the actress, character, film, year, whether they were lead, co-lead or in a prominent supporting role, and the Rotten Tomatoes score, to give a rough indication of how the film was recieved by audiences.


THE 1990s

Yes we had Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley in Alien at the tail end of the ’70s, but the ’80s were dripping in macho testosterone. So, for me, the ’90s is where this movement started to gain traction, with actresses like Linda Hamilton and Geena Davis leading the way, putting in decent performances in exciting, entertaining movies.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) 92%
Sarah Connor (supporting) – Linda Hamilton

The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996) 68%
Samantha Caine (lead) – Geena Davis

G.I. Jane (1997) 55%
Jordan O’Neil (lead) – Demi Moore

The Matrix (1999) 87%
Trinity (supporting) – Carrie-Anne Moss

THE 2000s

The good work the ’90s women put in gets somewhat undone at the start of this decade, with a bunch of terrible films (Eon Flux the biggest offender) and, whilst it’s no fault of the various actresses involved, it took a one-two punch of Angelina Jolie (Mr and Mrs Smith) and Uma Thurman (Kill Bill) to set things right. So by the end of the decade we were getting better films – and characters – with greater frequency (Hanna, Salt).

Then, by 2012, we’d probably reached a turning point. Angelina Jolie (aged 35 in Salt) couldn’t fly the flag forever, so others had to step up. Enter women like Jennifer Lawrence (22 in Hunger Games) and Saoirse Ronan (17 in Hanna), actresses that appealed and inspired a younger generation and helped push things further forward.

Charlie’s Angels (2000) 68%
Natalie Cook (co-lead) – Cameron Diaz, Dylan Sanders (co-lead) – Drew Barrymore, Alex Munday (co-lead) – Lucy Lui

Tomb Raider (2001) 20%
Lara Croft (lead) – Angelina Jolie

Resident Evil (2002) 34%
Alice (lead) – Milla Jovovich

Eon Flux (2005) 9%
Eon Flux (lead) – Charlize Theron

Mr and Mrs Smith (2005) 59%
Jane Smith (co-lead) – Angelina Jolie

Kill Bill (2003) 85%
Beatrix Kiddo (lead) – Uma Thurman

Wanted (2008) 71%
Fox (supporting) – Angelina Jolie

Salt (2010) 62%
Evelyn Salt (lead) – Angelina Jolie

Iron Man 2 (2010) 73%
Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (supporting) – Scarlet Johansson

Hanna (2011) 71%
Hanna (lead) – Saoirse Ronan

Hunger Games (2012) 84%
Katniss Everdeen (lead) – Jennifer Lawrence

2015 ONWARDS

In 2012 Disney acquired Star Wars as a property and set about making plans to expand the franchise with new films and characters, ones that would appeal to a modern audience. The majority of moviegoers want to see female characters better represented on screen, so franchises like Star Wars really need to lead the way.

Additionally, along with Marvel’s MCU and a smattering of female superheroes, even DC studios got in on the act, with a female-led action movie in Wonder Woman (something Marvel could only really match with supporting characters in films like Black Panther). Momentum and quality, though, had really shifted. If the below selection are anything to go by.

Mad Max (2015) 97%
Furiosa (supporting) – Charlize Theron

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015) 93%
Isla Faust (supporting) – Rebecca Ferguson

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) 93%
Rey (co-lead) – Daisy Ridley

Rogue One: A Star Wars story (2016) 85%
Jyn Erso (lead) – Felicity Jones

Wonder Woman (2017) 92%
Diana Prince (lead) – Gal Gadot

Atomic Blonde (2017) 77%
Lorraine Broughton – Charlize Theron

Black Panther (2018) 97%
Shuri (supporting) – Letitia Wright and Okoye (supporting) – Danai Garira

Bittersweet biopic – The Look of Love

I saw this at an advance screening back in November 2012. It doesn’t come out till the start of March in the UK, but as that’s realistically not that far off, let’s review!

The Look of Love is about the life and career of Paul Raymond aka the ‘King of Soho’, played by Steve Coogan. Born and raised in Liverpool, Raymond moved to London and opened Britain’s first strip club – the Raymond Revuebar – in 1958.

Featuring acts such as nude dancers performing with snakes, his club often grabbed headlines and incurred the wrath of authorities for its controversial nature. Yet, as you’d expect, this increased its popularity and success.

Within a few years Raymond expanded into publishing and bought adult title Men Only in 1971. However, the real reason he gained the ‘King of Soho’ name in the 1970s was down to property. Building his portfolio up purchasing much of Soho, he passed a fortune on to his grandchildren estimated upwards of £650m.

tamsin egerton steve cooganThe setup
Directed by Michael Winterbottom and starring Steve Coogan, the film features a strong cast including Anna Friel, Imogen Poots and Chris Addison.

It’s also a bit of a showcase for British comedy, with appearances from David Walliams, Stephen Fry, Matt Lucas, Simon Bird and more. In the case of Bird and Addison they’re hidden under a lot of hair (it is set in the 70s!), but you’ll laugh when you spot them.

To call it a comedy though, would be misleading. It’s a biopic – informative, tragic, funny, touching and ultimately bittersweet. It charts the rise of Raymond’s empire and the relationships with the women central to his life and success: wife (Friel), mistress (Egerton) and daughter (Poots).

Tender, tragic and charming
Coogan is quite brilliant in this role. In some ways Raymond can come across as quite unsympathetic; no time for his children, first abandoning his wife for his mistress, then mistress for whomever the next girl may be.

tamson egerton steve cooganCredit to Coogan, he manages to give Raymond a warmth and accessibility. He comes across as a guy trying to do his best, but doomed to make the same mistakes with all the women in his life, of which there are many. He also plays the role quite straight, allowing comic moments to reveal themselves accordingly – plus this gives room for more obvious comedic characters to shine.

Friel is outstanding as the fiery, yet vulnerable wife, coming in and out of his life at various moments. Egerton, too, plays her part well, as the sexy mistress who eventually runs out of patience with Raymond’s philandering ways.

For me, the biggest revelation was Poots as Raymond’s daughter, Debbie. Clearly a doting if misguided father, he indulges her every whim, including her desire to perform on stage headlining her own show. It isn’t a success and this kick-starts Debbie’s downward spiral, resulting in her death from heroin in 1992.

Poots gives Debbie an innocence and vulnerability that really gives dramatic heft to her fall from grace. Particularly when Raymond just isn’t there for her in the ways a father should be. When catching her doing cocaine for the first time, his fatherly advice is to ‘make sure it’s the best stuff and not rubbish from street dealers’.

Sex sells where love fails
This film shares a certain something with biopic Gia, based on the rise and fall of America’s first supermodel Gia Carangi, starring Angelina Jolie. It also had elements of Blow – a biopic starring Johnny Depp – based on the real life story of American cocaine smuggler George Jung.

Whilst both those were set in America, grand in scale and glamorous, The Look of Love is very much a British affair. Quirky, subtly amusing; finding comedy in tragedy and absurdity of the situation. There’s glamour, nudity and drugs, but it’s on more of an understated British level.

Ultimately, it’s an interesting little tale of a showman’s rise to fame through exploitation of the age-old motto ‘sex sells’. Yet what it does most cleverly – if you take away the glitz and glamour – is tell the tale of a man who surrounds himself with sex, yet fails to succeed at love. Either pushing it away with wives and girlfriends or – in the tragic case of his daughter – failing to live up to his responsibilities as a father.

Sometimes jumping between comedy and tragedy can seem jarring and uneven in tone, leaving the audience confused about what they are supposed to feel. Winterbottom does a great job, balancing these two elements to keep the film light when it needed to be, yet ensuring dramatic scenes still rang true.

So if you like true stories in a period setting, filled with tender, subtle drama and light, comic moments, go see it. But don’t expect an out-and-out comedy. It’s a more nuanced, reflective and complex tale – and that’s a good thing.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider – what went wrong?

angelina jolie

Clearly I must be a churl. According to Pulitzer prize-winning film critic Roger Ebert I fit the profile, at least to a degree. To explain, I was flicking through channels today – I know for those of you that read my posts regularly it may sound like I do this a lot, I really don’t – and settled on watching a bit of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider for one simple reason, Angelina Jolie. There is literally no other reason to watch this film.angelina jolie
When it came out in 2001 Roger Ebert gave it three out of four stars saying ‘Lara Croft elevates goofiness to an art form. Here is a movie so monumentally silly, yet so wondrous to look at, that only a churl could find fault.’ This left me conflicted, am I a churl? I see many faults!

For those of you not in the know, a churl is defined as a surly, ill-bred person. Now I’m sure that’s not me, however I take the point, this film really is ridiculous. But if you cannot embrace its ridiculousness, I don’t think that makes you a churl. Similarly I don’t think it’s that wondrous to look at, Angelina excepted. I could forgive its ridiculous nature if other things didn’t bug me, let’s examine them.

Supporting cast
Angelina excluded, who clearly was Lara Croft, the rest of the cast – including Daniel Craig – just didn’t cut it. Ok, Craig did ok, but the rest? Chris Barrie (still best known as Rimmer from Red Dwarf) was doing his best Alfred the butler impersonation. I suppose he was comic relief but his presence seemed jarring, especially when you stuck him next to Angelina. A perfect modern day alternative? Assuming Michael Caine is busy and you want some young blood, I’d go with Matt Smith, great comic timing and quirkyness. Then, to replace the tech IT nerd character that also assists Lara, I’d go with the excellent Ben Whishaw, soon to be seen as Q in the new Bond, Skyfall.

Gary OldmanBad guy
Played by an actor called Iain Glen (recently in season 1 of Game of Thrones), who actually has solid acting credentials. Aside from the fact he looks a little like a cut-price Steven Seagal, he just wasn’t compelling – or evil – enough to hold the screen against Angelina. You need an actor with a track record in big, brash evil villains, like Gary Oldman. Tom Berenger’s been having a bit of a revival lately, or Gary Busey. The latter filed for bankruptcy earlier this year so might bring a lot of evil frustration to the role – he could do with the money!

Script/plot
Some of the dialogue was pretty corny and wooden and the plot often felt contrived. There were whole scenes where they had to explain a lot of story points (John Voight’s letter from beyond the grave scene springs to mind), which is not the best way to let a plot unfold. A lot of this could have been smoothed over with more assured direction. Which brings us to…

Director

Simon West is an English Director best known for his debut film, Con Air in 1997. He was originally set up to direct Black Hawk Down, but due to conflicts took up Tomb Raider instead. I feel he would have been supremely out of his depth with the former. However, his loss was our gain, as we got Ridley Scott on that one.

The easiest way to explain West’s style is if you think of him as a budget version Michael Bay – then you’ve got some idea of what he does to films. Just look at his latest offering Expendables 2. In terms of alternatives, I would love to see a remake of Tomb Raider with Guillermo del Toro at the helm. I know I suggest him for a lot of films, but with good reason. A mystical journey, tombs with monsters, a kick-ass heroine – imagine what he could do!

Ok, so that’s my lot, rant over, I hope you enjoyed my thoughts. Now I’m not saying if you’re flicking channels and this film comes on, to turn over. You have to enjoy it for what it is, relatively average action, slightly rescued by the fact we get to look at lovely Angelina. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, it’s ridiculous but you have to love it!

Andy Serkis and the case for motion capture

Ok, ok, I know it’s been done, but I want to present my case for the use of motion capture. I suppose the reason for this is I recently saw two films which I felt, really help its case: Rise of the Planet of the Apes and The Adventures of Tin Tin: Secret of the Unicorn. Both good.

The case for: Andy Serkis
Simple as that. If it wasn’t for Mr Serkis and his excellent work we’d quite possibly never have had the following characters: Gollum (Lord of the Rings), Kong (King Kong), Captain Haddock (Tin Tin), Caesar (Planet of the Apes).

Now perhaps another actor could have stepped into the void, but sometimes it just takes a unique individual to achieve the type of performances he achieved.

I’ve read articles where Serkis has spoken about how other actors he’s spoken to in the past thought that what he did was voiceover, like animation. You speak into a microphone with no movement – at least none that gets recorded, then the ape or whatever it may be gets animated in afterwards. These are big A-list actors that thought this way.

Admittedly this was a few years ago, perhaps perceptions have changed. Although if you take IMDb for example, it shows his credit on the first Lord of the Rings as ‘Gollum (voice)’, which goes to show there’s still a way to go. Or maybe IMDb just need to update their website.

It’s also worth noting that motion capture is different to live actors on a digital background, think Sin City or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

angelina jolie beowulfThe case against: dead eyes
The two biggest problems in the early days have been summed up well in this article, which argues that Tin Tin is the last shot for motion capture. It argues the two main issues were a) dead eyes and b) making the world feel believable, especially how the characters move.

For me, films like The Polar Express (2004), King Kong (2005) and Beowulf (2007) laid the foundations for what followed. They could not have been expected to get it right first time.

King Kong at the time seemed an impressive stride forward. It didn’t have to be as intimate as Beowulf, which was hit and miss in terms of drawing you into a believable world. Angelina Jolie was relatively easy to capture, because she’s beautiful. Ray Winstone as a fit, young warrior, not so much.

The blue revolution
Avatar (2009) pushed things forward. The Director, James Cameron, went to great lengths to achieve realistic movements of the actors, including showing us the emotion contained in their eyes. Considering Avatar came out just two years after Beowulf, this was a phenomenal achievement.

Yet even Avatar wasn’t as intimate as say, Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011). In terms of realistic movement and the range of emotion in the ape Caesar’s eyes, it was truly impressive. Serkis popping up yet again.

tin tin andy serkisThen what we had were two giants of modern cinema and storytelling come together – Spielberg and Jackson – to give us the next step, Tin Tin (2011). Initially, within the first five minutes of watching this film, I was unsure. It seemed quite glossy to me. Then I realised that wasn’t an error, it was how they had designed Tin Tin’s world.

After that, I was lost in a good way! The story was classic Spielberg, a standout character, perhaps, was Snowy the dog. Although Serkis (again!) as Captain Haddock gave a captivating performance. Watch his eyes when memories about his past begin to resurface.

The furry revolution
So after apes, blue creatures and comic-book Belgian detectives, next came a teddy bear, Ted (2012). Again, pushing motion capture further than before. Seth Macfarlane voiced and performed. Not only does the bear seem to ‘fit’ into the real world perfectly, but it’s also the first time motion capture has been used in a comedy film. A critically well received comedy film too.

Again, like with all technology – particularly 3D in the last few years – we’re bound to get a lot of studios and Directors jumping on the bandwagon, churning out any old rubbish. For now, we’re mostly getting decent, solid stories (Tin Tin) and exciting action (Planet of the Apes), and now comedy (Ted).

So the future of motion capture is looking bright. As Andy Serkis describes it, ‘photography didn’t replace painting, it’s just another medium’.

Let’s finish with the adult trailer for Ted (you have to log in to You Tube to view this one, worth it though). Love Wahlberg’s quick-fire delivery of a list of white trash female names. Nothing to do with motion capture, just funny.

Who are the top 20 most intense actors of recent times?

charlie bronson

I do like an intense character and performance when I’m watching a film. Someone who literally rivets and welds you to the screen, look away at your peril. Some people probably like their films bright and breezy. I don’t mind those too, but there’s something about intensity that leaves a lasting impression. You remember those performances.

As such I thought I’d offer a couple of lists of actors and actresses that have had me mesmerised, entranced and – at times – a little frightened. I’ve most likely left off a lot of vintage performances and characters, but this is MY list so I’m allowed. Let me know your thoughts. Who would you have liked to have seen included?

In these lists I’ve put links to clips from some performances you might not have seen before, or maybe just want to revisit. Remember though, best not watch alone though, these lot are intense!

The guys

  1. charlie bronsonDaniel Day Lewis (Bill ‘the Butcher’ Cutting, Gangs of New York; Daniel Plainview, There will be Blood)
  2. Heath Ledger (The Joker, The Dark Knight)
  3. Tom Hardy (Charles Bronson, Bronson)
  4. Christian Bale (Patrick Bateman, American Psycho; Batman, The Batman Trilogy)
  5. Kevin Spacey (John Doe, Seven)
  6. Christopher Walken (Vicenzo Carcotti, True Romance; Frank White, King of New York)
  7. Javier Bardem (Anton Chigurh, No Country for Old Men)
  8. Christopher Waltz (Col. Hans Landa, Inglourious Basterds)
  9. Vincent Cassel (Jacques Mesrine, Mesrine)
  10. Liam Neeson (Bryan Mills, Taken)
  11. Jeremy Renner (Sergeant William James, The Hurt Locker; Jem Coughlin, The Town)
  12. Gary Oldman (Drexel, True Romance)

The gals

  1. helena bonham carter harry potterHelena Bonham Carter (Red Queen, Alice in Wonderland; Bellatrix Lestrange, Harry Potter)
  2. Cate Blanchett (Galadriel, Lord of the Rings)
  3. Marion Cotillard (Mal, Inception)
  4. Angelina Jolie (Lisa Rowe, Girl, Interrupted)
  5. Melanie Laurent (Shosanna Dreyfus, Inglourious Basterds)
  6. Charlize Theron (Aileen Wuornos, Monster)
  7. Famke Janssen (Xena Onotopp, Goldeneye; Jean Grey, Xmen: The Last Stand)
  8. Noomi Rapace (Lisbeth Salander, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)

So, there’s my list. You’ll notice there’s more men than women, I’m not sure why. I think, perhaps, there’s a tendency – particularly in Hollywood – for studios to shy away from films with intense, female leads. I wonder if they are more of a risk commercially? I don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s more to do with a lack of decent scripts for women, ones that don’t play to stereotypes.

One thing I’ve noticed is how top actors portray intensity – for me – it’s in the eyes. I think it’s what separates great actors and actresses from the rest. If you allow yourself to be drawn into their gaze, there’s so much depth there. Depending on the character they’re playing, it can be equally exciting, captivating and terrifying. Watch Pacino in The Godfather, making the decision to kill with his eyes. A lesson in intensity.

Right, I need to go watch some comedy now to level out. It’s all got too much. I’ll finish with artwork of Marion Cotillard, not because it’s intense, but because it’s simply beautiful – and that’s all the reason you need.

Marion Cotillard artwork

Sin City 2: Angie, where are you?

angelina jolie

Ok, I know the release date for Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For is scheduled for October 2013, but I’ve had something playing on my mind. Namely, Mrs Pitt (sounds strange calling her that). Ok, Angie or Miss Jolie – NEVER Brangelina (damn tabloids).

angelina jolieWill she, won’t she be in this film?
A quick search turned up a poster a fanboy knocked up. It’s such an enticing prospect. Some of the actresses in the first Sin City positively smouldered in every scene, namely Rosario Dawson and Brittany Murphy. They were perfect for Frank Miller’s world, but can you imagine how Angie would take it to another level?

I suppose there is always some truth in rumour. However a positive one such as this can have the opposite effect and end up pushing her away, as expectation has been built up far too much – for her or any actress – to deliver. As well as Angie, rumours are swirling around a number of the existing cast and new additions. Even IMDb isn’t sure, putting “rumoured” after various names in its cast list.

If Angie does play a part in A Dame to Kill For, I hope it is key to one of the three story arcs Robert Rodriguez has hinted at. She could bring a great mix of intensity, vulnerability and sexuality, as only she can.

Angelina JolieFilms such as: Gia (one of her early – and most captivating – characters to date), Girl, Interrupted, Beowulf (although she was annoyingly computer generated), Salt, Mr and Mrs Smith (to a degree), really makes me excited at the prospect. However, I am getting carried away. Something tells me the chances of her being in this film are quite slim, but we can hope!

There’s a blog that suggests that maybe she’s moved on, family commitments and all that. Check out the movie blog here. Let’s hope it’s not true. Watch this space!