Judd did play a 'white-trash' role before, and played it well ("Ruby in Paradise") but then she's gone all refined and delicate (but "spunky"!). Can't see her in the Maggie role in MDB AT ALL.
The thing with Swank is, she's very good at the kind of role she does (downtrodden but strong-willed) but I don't think she has much of a range. Apparently she's now making a movie in which she plays a 40's femme fatale, and try as I may, I can't picture her slinking around on screen exuding calculated sex apeal.
Apparently she's now making a movie in which she plays a 40's femme fatale, and try as I may, I can't picture her slinking around on screen exuding calculated sex apeal.
She did a bunch of roles like this after
Boys Don't Cry
and none of them really worked. 18th century period dramas and such. She's too raw-boned.
The thing with Swank is, she's very good at the kind of role she does (downtrodden but strong-willed) but I don't think she has much of a range.
I'd tend to agree. In anything else, she's more wooden than a lumberyard.
Is it wrong of me to say that I think that she would be good in nitty-gritty women of the dust-bowl, pioneer woman roles?
Whatserface Plain and Tall?
If her career tanks, she'd do well in Hallmark/Lifetime movies-of-the-week based on Lavyrle Spencer books (mostly set in the Depression, featuring dirt-poor but hardworking women looking for love).
She could make a really nice Alexandra if they ever do another O! Pioneers.
She's too raw-boned.
She's also quite a bit too skinny to be a proper 40s siren, no? Need something to fill out that bullet bra, and the idealized cheekbone did not have a hollow below it in those days.
I don't know a thing about her acting, but her looks are very distinctive, and not in any of the several "classic Hollywood" ways.
She looks like she's packing a C -- how big do you need to be for a siren? Given padding technology too?
