Showing posts with label Emily Blunt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emily Blunt. Show all posts

How 'The Devil Wears Prada' Transformed Careers

Posted by Should I See It on Saturday, February 27, 2010 , under , , , , , , , , , , | comments (0)





So what do you remember most about The Devil Wears Prada? Meryl Streep’s delicious performance? The clothes? New York? Simon Baker without a shirt on?


Or maybe it's the aftermath of this intelligent blockbuster that you remember most? Now you know who Emily Blunt is, and you watch The Mentalist every week and you secretly hope Stanley Tucci will walk away with the Academy Award in a few weeks time.

What ever you liked or didn't like about it, you can't help but notice that after this film the careers of the leading cast members took a turn for the better.

I call it 'The Devil Wears Prada Effect.' Symptoms include increased publicity, more widespread roles, becoming a 'bankable' name, and having greater attention focused on the actor's career. Side effects may include, but are not limited to, above the title billing, increased interest in the actor's personal life and an increase in nominations and awards.

I am in no way suggesting that these actors were nobodies before this film, but rather we can plot a definate upwards trajectory in their careers that got it's boost from The Devil Wears Prada.






 EMILY BLUNT

Now, be honest: Who here had heard of Emily Blunt before she literally stole every scene in The Devil Wears Prada??? Anyone????? Now she does have an impressive list of credits pre-Prada, including a Golden Globe Award for her role in British miniseries Gideon’s Daughter, but Prada sky-rocketed her from relative unknown to the hottest property in young Hollywood.

Prada gave Blunt’s career the attention her talent deserves. She has graduated into and ‘above the title’ actress and has had quite a few nominations for her work in The Young Victoria.

It’s actually hard to believe Hathaway got an Academy Award nomination before her.





ANNE HATHAWAY



Okay, so Anne Hathaway is probably the actor in this list least impacted by The Devil Wears Prada Effect. Hathaway had a pretty good career behind he; She was already well known and a marketable name in Hollywood. But Prada allowed her to move beyond the teeny bopper roles like The Princess Diaries in to more adult territory (yes, I know she was in Brokeback Mountain, but who remembers her in that?!). Since Prada, Hathaway was nominated for an Academy Award in 2009 for Rachel Getting Married as well as winning a number of independent and critics choice awards for that performance.









STANLEY TUCCI



For Tucci, great roles have never been a problem. He has an impressive list of credits and awards including two Emmys Two Golden Globes and an Independent Spirit Award amongst others.

Stanley Tucci has never been the sort of bankable name the way Streep and Hathaway are. He has flown under the radar, while delivering performances worthy of attention.

His turn as over worked/ underappreciated designer Nigel in The Devil Wears Prada is almost like Tucci’s career; great performances, but not widely recognised.

Last year, Tucci delivered great performances in both Julie & Julia and The Lovely Bones. In fact, the journalists predicting the likely candidates for the Academy Awards were torn between which of the two performances would be recognised. Tucci actually scored his first Academy Award nomination for The Lovely Bones.




SIMON BAKER



The Devil Wears Prada is one of the highlights of Simon Baker’s otherwise lacklustre resume. Apart from LA Confidential and season one of The Guardian, there are some pretty embarrassing films on there (Affair of the Necklace, Something New).

His performance in Prada as devilishly charming writer Christian Thompson was (more than likely) responsible for him landing the role of devilishly charming fake psychic Patrick Jane on The Mentalist.

For his work on The Mentalist, Baker has been nominated for an Emmy, a Screen Actors Guild Award and a Golden Globe, as well as receiving the coveted title of Sexiest Man on Television.





MERYL STREEP



Yes, even Queen Meryl makes this list. Oh I know she had like thirteen Academy Award nominations before Prada, and is widely recognised as one of the greatest actresses of all time, but I don’t think we should over look the impact of Prada.

Not only did The Devil Wears Prada introduce Streep to a new generation of cinema goers (trust me, Out of Africa was not high on any teenagers must watch list), but it also launched something of an Academy Award nomination spree: three nominations in the last four years (including her work in Prada). And after the massive box office success of Mamma Mia!, it is suddenly hip to be Meryl Streep.














The Young Victoria (Sorry, no witty title for this review!)

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, September 27, 2009 , under , , , | comments (1)



Film: The Young Victora (GK Films)
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Starring: Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend, Paul Bettany , Miranda Richardson.
Plot: Chronicles the early years of Queen Victoria’s reign and her courtship and early marriage with Prince Albert.





To be honest, I am not a fan of biopics. I find them overlong, self indulgent and usually lacking a clear focus. I am, however, a fan of period dramas. And in that respect The Young Victoria acquits itself nicely. By focusing on the early years of Victoria’s reign we have a nicely honed film that is part period drama, part political drama and part love story. Of course there are those tropes that plague period dramas; lots of people starring at each other across rooms, and lots of letter writing. And make sure you brush up on your British history, because there are a couple of political events that are unclear.

But for the most part, The Young Victoria is a very nice film.

The material is well handled by director Jean-Marc Vallée. There are some stunning visuals, particularly the opening sequence of Victoria’s coronation. The scene at the coronation ball where Albert and Victoria waltz is a scene of incredible tenderness and intimacy set against the grandeur and sumptuousness of the ball itself. And the costumes (my favourite part of period films) are wonderfully lavish.

The films greatest strength is its treatment of the romance between Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. The film thankfully restrains from being a ‘bodice ripper’ ala The Tudors and The Other Boleyn Girl and instead presents its audience with a quiet old-fashioned love story that is never in danger of veering towards melodrama.

Of course history (and to a lesser extent cinematic convention) tells us that Victoria and Albert will marry, but nevertheless the ride is as entertaining as ever. Rupert Friend as Prince Albert is, dare I say it, adorable. His boyish exuberance, particularly on receiving letters from Victoria, is incredibly endearing.

Emily Blunt is in fine form as Queen Victoria. She navigates the struggle of a young woman in a man’s role with simultaneous innocence and confidence. Neither Blunt nor the film is afraid of exploring Victoria’s faults, which thankfully stops the film from becoming a love letter to Queen Victoria. From what I read prior to the film’s release, I gather that The Young Victoria was supposed to elevate Emily Blunt to Academy Award nominee status. There is no doubt that Blunt is talented, but I don’t think that this film will do it. The performance does not have the impact Helen Mirren’s did as another royal in The Queen.


There is a certain amount of ‘Hollywoodisation” to the story- Albert’s being shot is a prime example, but that is likely to upset only the British history buffs. The scene in question is well executed and adds the required amount of drama to third act, but most importantly one can imagine that this could be historically accurate as fits seamlessly into the story of the film.


This is a good film. A solid film. But I wonder why it is a film at all. This is the sort of thing the BBC loves. It is a wonder that is not a made for TV movie of a miniseries, and I mean that as no discredit to the film makers. I am merely suggesting that the material would be better suited to small screen adaptation.


My only major problem with the film is the way it ignores the condition of England at the time. Of course, both Victoria and Albert demonstrate concern for the plight of the lower classes, much to the objection of some of the political figures present, but this seems merely superficial and to create the appearance of action towards helping the middle classes. I just cannot reconcile my knowledge of Victorian England with its presentation in the film. It seems such a small thing to be worried about, especially as it is not a major factor in the films story, but I have clearly been reading too much Dickens for my own good.


Should I see it?


For a fan of period dramas, Definitely.



The Young Victoria Official Site here.