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?