MovieChat Forums > The Beguiled (2017) Discussion > Kidman, Dunst, Fanning

Kidman, Dunst, Fanning

posted 8 years ago by joekiddlouischama
8 replies | jump to latest

I do not want to prejudge the film, and I will give it an honest shot if and when I see it, but the filmmakers seem to have cast "names." They may all end up fitting the parts, but part of the appeal and effectiveness of the original The Beguiled derives from how the filmmakers did not cast the female parts based on "names." Once director Don Siegel and star Clint Eastwood decided to make the film (they had recently made two movies together, Coogan's Bluff and Two Mules for Sister Sara, and were mutually admiring friends and colleagues), they did not try to fluff up the cast with any notable names to "complement" Eastwood. Geraldine Page was an acclaimed actress, especially on Broadway, but not a movie star with popular appeal (despite having once starred opposite Paul Newman, a decade earlier in Sweet Bird of Youth). Elizabeth Hartman had enjoyed a couple of notable roles a few years earlier, once opposite Sidney Poitier in A Patch of Blue (1966), but not recently. And everyone else was anonymous. And because the actresses were cast simply because of how they fit the parts, there is a freshness to the casting—a lack of commercial contrivance that permeates the entire entity.

Coversely, Kidman/Dunst/Fanning sounds about what one would expect from filmmakers seeking a "high profile" cast that will generate publicity with the media and within the industry. That is not to say that they will not fit the parts, and perhaps they will all be great, but casting three "names" for the female roles suggests the possibility of your typical Hollywood procedures. We shall see.

Incidentally, this matter came up in an interview with Eastwood in 1974; see this video from the 18:42 mark through to the end:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNe17nwn0G4

[–] velvetcrowbar91 8 years ago

Geraldine Page, Clint Eastwood, and Elizabeth Hartman weren't names? 

Sofia never casts based on popularity, but rather, she has worked with Dunst and Fanning in the past and understands their abilities. Kidman as Page's role is just perfect casting.

[–] joekiddlouischama 8 years ago

Thanks for the note on Dunst and Fanning. I still feel that they are fashionable names within the industry, but that reality may be incidental here. Kidman could be perfectly suited for the role of the headmistress ... or she could be cast because she is "Nicole Kidman," someone who is well-recognized among moviegoers and frequently cast in "artsy" prestige films as well. I will reserve judgment until I view the film.

Certainly, Eastwood was a top-five movie star at the time, but the director, Don Siegel, did not really "cast" him in that sense. Eastwood's Malpaso Company produced the film for Universal, and as I noted, he and Siegel were close collaborators by that point. In fact, Eastwood was the one who brought the material to Siegel. (The director, in his memoirs, remembers Eastwood giving him the novel in Mexico while they were shooting Two Mules for Sister Sara in the spring of 1969, although Eastwood remembers his first introduction to the material coming in the form of a script sent to him by his agent, Lenny Hirshan.)

Page and Hartman were not, in my opinion, fashionable names within the industry by 1970. In that interview that I linked to, Brian Linehan essentially makes that point, asking Eastwood why someone such as Elizabeth Taylor or Barbra Streisand was not in The Beguiled. He obviously considered Page (and perhaps Hartman) fine actresses, but not fashionable names.

I am curious to see what Coppola does with the material. I am not a fan of remakes in general—especially for films as good as The Beguiled—but reducing the focus on the male lead and emphasizing the female prerogatives could offer a different and intriguing perspective. Of course, the original The Beguiled does not exactly ignore the various female motivations and characters (especially Page's). And with only one significant male figure, diminishing his role—which obviously sparks the entire story—could lead to an imbalance. But if Coppola pulls it off, more power to her. I doubt that the film will be as fresh and raw and disturbing as the original, but the material is great and could still lead to something noteworthy.

I am not sure that the original can be improved upon, though. If anything, I would have preferred if she had taken the basic premise and transplanted it to a new setting and era (the Revolutionary War? the War of 1812? World War I or II in Europe?), the better to retain a chance of freshness.

... just some thoughts.

[–] ManWithoutFriends 8 years ago

Nicole Kidman isn't exactly a box office draw herself. She hasn't even done a studio film in nearly a decade now. So not really a NAME by your own definition either.

[–] bhang-812-928667 8 years ago

And Kirsten Dunst isn't that a star anymore like she was in the mid 2000s. Kidman is probably the most famous one in the ensemble. Farrell is by far not one of the most famous male stars now (or anymore) like Eastwood was at the beginning of the 1970s. Fanning is a rising star, OK.

Whatever, it is not so that the film has actors cast like Gosling and Johansson (or Portman) in order to say that this film is "only" a star-studded mainstream film.

[–] joekiddlouischama 8 years ago

Whatever, it is not so that the film has actors cast like Gosling and Johansson (or Portman) in order to say that this film is "only" a star-studded mainstream film.

Yes, I agree.

And I am not saying that the film's casting reflects a desire to be "mainstream." The casting just struck me as "typical," and part of what made the original The Beguiled so effective is how "atypical" it all seems. Even though Eastwood constituted a big name (although he had emerged though highly unusual routes), no one had ever associated him with gothic psychological melodrama or envisioned him as a hobbled or bed-ridden character throughout an entire movie.

Maybe the comparison is not that fair—in today's era, perhaps you need a greater array of "names" in order to attain the requisite funding, or "obscurity" is just harder to do. That era in Hollywood (1967-1976 more generally, say 1969-1972 more specifically) was anomalous, with the industry in something of a state of upheaval, and it facilitated bolder approaches for those so inclined.

Anyway, I am curious as to whether this version will be as dark and include as much uncomfortable material—and, if so, how Coppola will shoot it. If she has excised the Mae Mercer (female slave) part, I wonder how that decision will affect the movie.

[–] joekiddlouischama 8 years ago

Nicole Kidman isn't exactly a box office draw herself. She hasn't even done a studio film in nearly a decade now. So not really a NAME by your own definition either.

My definition was not simply or exclusively about box office appeal. Yes, Nicole Kidman at this point, by herself, is unlikely to attract a major box office. But she has been a major movie star, something that was not true of any of The Beguiled's actresses, and she is still very much associated with what we would call "prestige pictures." In other words, she is fashionable, which is not necessarily the same as being commercially popular. Moreover, she is still highly recognizable.

There was nothing fashionable, really, about any of The Beguiled's actresses, and many audience goers would not have recognized any of the female names.

I am not saying that that model is the only way to make such a film, just that it is part of what lent The Beguiled its freshness.

[–] benlane086 8 years ago

She's worked with Kirsten Dunst many times before and also Elle Fanning, so that's probably one of the reasons.

[–] crashdummy35 8 years ago

Kidman and Fanning pretty much decided me: may catch this online, sure as hell ain't paying to see this.