August Appreciation: Emma Stone

This weekend, strong word of mouth has brought popular book adaptation The Help to rise to the #1 spot at the box office this weekend ahead of the well-reviewed blockbuster Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which had just barely beaten it the weekend before. It's a comparable story to the box office success of The Blind Side in 2009 and puts the likes of Julie & Julia or Eat Pray Love, to which The Help had been previously compared to, in the proverbial dust. Sandra Bullock's continuing reign as America's sweetheart and the star power that comes therein had been said to anchor the success of The Blind Side and, likewise, I think Emma Stone's name can be safely thrown into the "star" category.

While The Help might have had more, well, help, from seasoned character actors like Viola Davis or Octavia Spencer, there is no confusion that the center role belongs to Emma Stone and she has once again opened a movie at which she is the center of to breakthrough success to the surprise of the industry matching her achievement last year with Easy A after also having been involved with the ensemble of the moderately successful Crazy Stupid Love (although my main complaint with the film would probably be that there simply isn't enough of her, especially compared to the irritable child and his creepy babysitter).

Netflix has recently made the film Paper Man available for instant viewing which, though not as strong as the likes of Easy A or The Help on the strength of its own merit, can summon up one aspect of Emma's appeal and how she's skyrocketing to the top of the A-list of Hollywood. Paper Man was an underseen and critically mauled indie dramedy in the vein of a Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry film that had first made critics single-out praise for Emma shortly before she burst on the more mainstream scene with Easy A. In the film, she embodied a persona and character of a strong-willed independently-minded but-still-sensitive-enough-to-yearn-for-some-affection character even more strongly than she had in Easy A and The Help. But it's this character that she plays so well, so precisely, with such sympathy and ability to relate that defines her screen presence in a way that can only hearken back to the most classic of Hollywood stars from the golden era and is the stuff legends are made from. While only being 22.

Yes, well, in Paper Man it was more for her desire to fill a fatherless void that she finds in Jeff Daniels while in Easy A it was a more for a boy who would finally perhaps want to take her out on a real date and aiming for romance instead of just having the opportunity to tell people that they banged her. So it's not like she's playing the same role over and over again, she's finding great roles that suit her strengths in a diverse selection that still manages to show off her versatility. In The Help, she plays a strong-willed independently-minded journalist in the rougher context of 60s-era Mississippi who still wants a sense of normalcy and a good man to like her for who she is just as anyone else would want. And she stands out in an ensemble of Julliard-trained and Tony award winning actresses with her memories of being raised by an old family maid whom her ailing mother (just another layer of psychological complexity that Stone attaches on her character with surprisingly seamlessness that still matched a lighter tone to the film) fires while Stone's character has been away at school. Upon learning the circumstances of that firing, Stone has a killer scene and very easily the best delivered line among the intimidating cast of actors.

Not even mentioning how easily she seemed to slip into the period and carry a believable southern drawl, one would think something of this genre might not suit her talents as much as, say, the indie scene street cred of Paper Man or the hip teen comedy genre of Easy A that proves to be such MTV Movie Award and Teen Choice Award bait, or even the romantic comedy genre of Crazy Stupid Love or Friends With Benefits or even the gross-out comedies like Superbad or The House Bunny. And she only continues to further prove her strengths as an actress, her bankability as a star and her emotional versatility as an artist by choosing her star path so instinctively, so against the grain of conventional wisdom, always subverting expectations for her. While any young bombshell in Hollywood trying to breakthrough big time would die/dye to have blonde hair, the naturally blonde Stone prefers to color her hair red. Many actresses aim for the more passively written female roles in major testosterone filled blockbusters while Emma fights for the female ensembles and comedies (like most of the films mentioned so far) and has even had the privilege of hosting Saturday Night Live to impressive results. But even these comedies, particularly those that have proven to be her three defining roles thus far (Paper Man, Easy A and The Help) she has imbued her generally upbeat characters with a sense of heartwrenching dramatic notes that she hits to home runs with standout line readings. Whether it be "so I swam back..." and the rest of that monologue from Paper Man to "I kind of hate me too" from Easy A to "you broke her heart" from The Help, she consistently seems to be wooing and proving herself more and more with each film and each year in the business while critics and bloggers this summer were expecting her star to grow while even underestimating the potential success of The Help.

Suddenly she seems to have dug a very impressive niche for herself when it's announced that, suddenly, she's gonna be apart of the rebooted Spider-Man franchise. People are blindsided at first but figure ultimately that she'd be perfect for Mary Jane. No no no, she's going back to her blonde roots for Gwen Stacey. She already opened the $8 million budgeted Easy A to over twice that number in it's opening weekend finishing at close to $60 million and opened The Help to, first, match and then even exceed an installment of Planet of the Apes as opposed to many female-opened comedies of the past few years like Love & Other Drugs, One Day, Morning Glory, Life As We Know It, Killers, The Switch etc. etc. by actresses thought to be much more established than the young Emma with, I believe, The Amazing Spider-Man only to be a guaranteed (and for her probably the biggest) box office success in her already impressive hand of cards.

She has the natural talent that had caught the eyes of Hollywood ever since the likes of Superbad, The House Bunny and Zombieland and has the charisma and proven success, especially after this Summer, that should negate any argument of "overexposure" as if her stardom is being forced on the moviegoing public. She's not being rammed down anyone's throats, she's getting there completely on the merit of her own natural talent and is increasingly getting loved by as many people as are willing to give her a chance and paying to see the films centered around her. Read more!

The Amazing Spider-Man and politicized film impressions.

The trailer, above, for the new Spider-Man film coming out a year from now seems to have some genuinely excited but, looking through comments and threads about the subject, overall might not seem to be going over too well. But what's with the hate? Why is this being received less enthusiastically than Gary Oldman muttering in a hospital bed following a really cheesy, if you ask me, shot of urban buildings opening up in the shape of a bat in the teaser for The Dark Knight Rises.

Well, there's one central thing...I think most people can accept that 5 years after the last installment seems too soon for an immediate reboot of the franchise. Sony needed to make another movie this soon to maintain the rights to their lucrative Spider-Man brand, however, and one can understand the clear fiscal obligation to continue with it in some shape or form. The last film had disappointed critics and audiences, the central stars were getting too old and clearly disenchanted with the fame, while Sam Raimi would have wanted more time and seemed to thirst for more creative outside ventures that he eventually acted upon after the last installment with fantastic entertainment like Drag Me to Hell. I think it's obvious that the only thing more unnecessary than another reboot would have been another sequel, for obvious reasons and for everyone involved. And, as mentioned before, the fiscal need to come out with a new Spider-Man project left the only option being to reboot the series.

By virtue of the capitalist system, however, audiences can send clear messages to production companies with how they choose to spend their money. Take, for instance, the growing insistence to see films available to view in 3D in 2D, instead, opting instead for the 3D purchases with more "event" films such as Avatar as opposed to Pirates of the Caribbean or the latest Harry Potter. And it seems many audiences have already decided that they feel it is too soon for another Spider-Man reboot. Many on the dubious world of internet seem so at odds with this prospect that many go so far as to proclaim that they hope the film fails spectacularly at the box office regardless of how good the film may actually end up being.

And that's where I start having the problem, and that's also where I start to sense much of the pushback against the trailer being incredibly artificial.

Let's break things down for a moment, shall we? (500) Days of Summer was a rare film from a few years ago simultaneously whimsical yet rooted in painfully humane truths that made for an experience that brought both delight to its viewing and serious emotional gravitas. By the time he filmed Summer, Marc Webb was arguably already one of the most in-demand of mainstream music video directors. Sam Raimi is one of my favorite directors of all time, period, and I greatly admire what he did with the first two Spider-Man movies. However, I think Raimi's departure from the series was best for him creatively, best for me as a fan of his, and Sony proved to know what they were aiming for in the new installment of Spider-Man with the bold decision to cast Webb to take over the directing helm. And using the terms with which I would describe how Webb executed (500) Days of Summer, that's exactly what I hope will come out of The Amazing Spider-Man.

Obviously Raimi is much more proven than someone like Webb, but with most of the other names of talent involved I feel show signs of marked improvement over the initial lucrative trilogy of Spider-Man films. Take, for instance, Andrew Garfield, who often speaks very highly of his predecessor Mr. Maguire. One of the myths, however, coming out of the pushback against this trailer is that somehow Garfield is not fit to replace Maguire's shoes in the role. I have nothing particularly against Tobey Maguire, nor what he did in the films (although many Spider-Man fans felt he was miscast from the get-go). He didn't detract anything from the character, but he wasn't an actor of enough caliber to actually add anything to the role either. Andrew Garfield, on the other hand, frankly just is. To suggest that Andrew Garfield can not play a role, any role, let alone this role, better than Tobey Maguire proves a willing ignorance to look at Garfield's career objectively. The weakest performance from Andrew that I've ever seen, I'd argue, is his performance as Tommy D. in Never Let Me Go. The heights he reached in that particular performance were powerful, to be sure, but overall uneven (which I would blame uneven directing for much of). Tobey Maguire's best performance, I'd argue, is in Wonder Boys. Further than that, I'd say that Garfield's performance in Never Let Me Go is superior to that of Maguire in Wonder Boys — in other words, Tobey Maguire's never given a performance as good and Andrew Garfield's worst performance. Garfield is simply of a different class of acting talent and to discredit or dismiss his ability to reprise Maguire's original role takes credibility from one's argument away right off the bat.

As for Kirsten Dunst, who was clearly the one most eager to jump off the Spider-Man ship of the cast (even moreso than James Franco), is a fine actress but few actors of any age have the magnetic presence that Emma Stone radiated last year in Easy A. And, wouldn't you know it, Sony made Stone dye her hair back to its original blonde from her trademark red in that movie which everyone assumed would have made her a great Mary Jane. But the fact remains that Stone would have been a better fit in both Mary Jane's and Gwen Stacy's roles than Dunst was in the original, and happens to looks strikingly similar to the Stacy in the original comic book series.

The rest of the supporting cast are made up of names as exciting as they are endlessly watchable — Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Irrfan Khan, Rhys Ifans — I'm a fan of all these actors and are excited to see them take the helm for the obviously great supporting cast of character actors like Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris and J.K. Simmons who helped make the fist few Spider-Men so entertaining.

More than anything else, the talent of the names involved is what peaks my interest with this film and nothing in the trailer dampened those high expectations whatsoever. But it seems that the trailer does nothing but confirm your preconceived notions going into the trailer of the film, and it led to an opportunity of hoards of moviegoers to give their say against the commercial premise of this film's very existence in the first place. Which I completely understand — the reason why Sony did it was a no-brainer, but that reason is one that is based in a greed that drives Hollywood movies of all sorts that should not be a surprise to anyone. But in a desperate attempt to come up with critiques that conform with this anger, their reasoning proves to be completely arbitrary and disingenuous.
Think about how contradictory the complaints actually are!

• The look of the film: Some people say it looks too dark for the comic books a la Nolan's Batman series while others say it looks like a carbon copy of Raimi's original series...well well, there's no way it can be both, can it? In fact I would venture to say that it didn't particularly strike me as either of those (if anything the pulling the string or whatever out of his neck seemed more reminiscent of Black Swan than anything else), but as I said of that balance of whimsy and gravitas that Webb had struck with (500) Days of Summer (in other words...something in between).
• Hot or Not?: Some claim that Garfield is too pretty to convincingly play a nerd (something about an Abercrombie model in a Nike track suit...or something) while others say that he's too offensively unattractive. Well, I guess that's just all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I think it's pretty clear that he does look closer to the original Peter Parker of the Amazing Spider-Man comics.
• No tone! No POV!: Some say the first half is too dark and should be more like the latter POV shot while others say that they were excited for it until that final POV shot. What is important to note is, on one hand, the potential power of that final POV sequence after a year of post-production and with 3D glasses as intentioned, and on the other hand the fascinating message sent out by imitating a video game aesthetic not seen since 2003's Elephant insisting upon and cementing the inseparable bond now held between the universes of comic book fans and video game fans.

And might I just add that the scrutiny over the film going through Parker's origins are grossly misjudged? Yes, they went over that in the initial Spider-Man but Raimi's creation largely ignored Parker's high school life while this one expands on it. Some people easily dismissed that element as boring, but as I'm largely arguing, that could be more projecting of your own ideas of the mere unnecessity of the film's existence to begin with rather than giving the trailer itself a fair shake.

And perhaps it's the opposite instance with myself, but in all honesty there isn't much about the trailer that I can see that's really worth criticizing at all outside of manufactured outrage targeted more largely towards the fact that there are easy suspicions about Sony's intentions with the film to begin with. Maybe the movie will be lame. Maybe The Dark Knight Rises will be the best movie ever made ever by anyone ever because that's just how cool Christopher Nolan is (omg buildings opening in the sky what a visionary!!!). Frankly, any more whining about Sony making another Spider-Man just comes across as more redundant than the project itself at this point and one should consider, and applaud, the way in which Sony has tried to attach genuinely talented names to the film and try to sincerely make a different and interesting product out of their probably greedy intentions. And the idea that they need to be punished for that, even if they actually end up making something good out of it (it's possible that they even won't!), is some very poor decision making as a moviegoer and says more about you at that point than it says about Sony or anyone else involved in the project.

And I guess with that I end my rant. But one more thing — what exactly is people's issue with the suit? Generally I feel like the Entertainment Weekly front page making preview feature of the film was received positively and talked about more than any EW issue I can think of in recent times (people generally haven't been making facebook statuses about the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly) — with especially high marks to the particular fitting of the outfit on Garfield. But, like I've been saying, there's a segment of people who will try and find an excuse to complain about every aspect of the film that they can possibly muster.



Read more!