Interesting take by Charles Taylor on Tom Cruise and his "stardom" -- which ties in oddly to our discussion over the weekend.

I read this article last week and it made me really mad. It does tie in to the discussion you guys were having, and I actually wrote a letter that I was going to send in to Salon (but I didn't because I'm not THAT far gone--yet) about why movie criticism seems to be dieing (or dead) in this country, when one of the premier publications known for its thoughtful criticism is wasting its time (and mine) with crap articles which do nothing but take easy shots at Tom Cruise by comparing him with other movie stars. Can't these people find something else to say about film besides spending three pages on why Tom Cruise isn't as good as Lee Marvin or Johnny Depp? It's depressing when there are so many deserving movies that don't get much press, and "criticism" now often takes the form of making "best" lists and useless comparisons.

eta: Apologies for this post, I know it's kind of a retread.

Whatever happened.... to Fay Wray?

She went ape.

I have this from a reliable source -- a graffito on a carrel in a law school library.

Well, he said that the scene at the beginning between Jamie Foxx and Jada Pinkett Smith had everything that he looks for in a scene between two actors.

That's good, right?

I mean, this was an article from August 6th -- the day that Collateral opened. I imagine that they had to assign somebody to this movie.

I mean, this was an article from August 6th -- the day that Collateral opened. I imagine that they had to assign somebody to this movie.

I'm being hypercritical, but there had to be more (or at least something slightly interesting) he could have said about this movie.

there had to be more (or at least something slightly interesting) he could have said about this movie.

But I think articles about careers are interesting.

But I think articles about careers are interesting.

It didn't really seem to be about his career, though, just how his career wasn't like other actor's. Actually, though, I think I've just been going through a weird period where almost everything about the media bugs me and it's more my own bizarre issue than anything else. A few months ago, this type of article wouldn't have bothered me at all.

Since I've been thinking about careers and categories (why I don't know), I'm curious about the opinions of people with more immersion in the industry than I have.

I want to abstract everything out and model it, even knowing it won't fit, and I'd suspect anyone who claimed to have done so successfully.

I want to abstract everything out and model it, even knowing it won't fit, and I'd suspect anyone who claimed to have done so successfully.

Do you mean you want to catagorize everyone who'd fit the action star profile, the screwball heroine, etc?

Do you mean you want to catagorize everyone who'd fit the action star profile, the screwball heroine, etc?

No, not so much. More like identifying who is iconic, and why, and how the things to be iconic in change with the times, and how and why other people avoid the same pedestal/trap.

Denzel is obviously more iconic than I'd thought, although he still gets rewarded for dancing outside the lines -- unlike a Meg Ryan who gets forgotten or crap box office when she tries it.

You shouldn't get that worked up over a Charles Taylor piece, Maysa. I think he's Salon's best movie reviewer by a long shot, but he often has these weirdo tangential potshot pieces like that. And his overly boomer-centric worldview occasionally blinds him. I guess I'm trying to say: decent writer who will leave you scratching your head once a month.

But he's still better than Andrew "Boringly Enthusiastic" O'Hehir or Stephanie "It's All Good" Zacharek. Well, at least to me.