[Makson]

Scarlett is considered as one of the Hollywood A-List but she lacks the huge roles and awards to back it up I feel.
She was considered the "next big thing" back in 2003/2004 with her roles in Girl With A Pearl Earing and Lost In Translation.
Her acting career appeared to stall soon afterwards with starring in a string of flops like Synergy, The Island, Black Dahlia, etc.
When I first discovered her in 2004, I was sure by this stage she would be a regular Acadamy Award nominee with a stellar body of work behind her but that is far from the case
I guess she just sucks at choosing roles. It is just terrible to see so much talent going to waste.

[Aerick]

In 2010, Scarlett made her Broadway stage debut in Arthur Miller's "A View From the Bridge," earning her a TONY Award as Best Performance by a Featured Actress in a Play.

Sounds like a top hono(u)r!

[NorfolkBoy1]

She's also been in The Prestige and Vicky Christina Barcelona, two huge critical hits, picked up a key role in the Avengers franchise (and no doubt a huge bag of money), she's JANET BLOODY LEIGH in the upcoming Hitchcock, and has a really interesting low-fi sci-fi film coming out next year called Under The Skin.

She seems to be doing alright to me.

[theonlyweeman]

Academy Awards aren't really a measure of ability, they're a measure of a studios marketing ability. I wouldn't be too upset if she never gets any...

[Walter Neff]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

Academy Awards aren't really a measure of ability, they're a measure of a studios marketing ability. I wouldn't be too upset if she never gets any...

Very true, in fact they can be the kiss of death, Luise Rainer won an Oscar two years in succession, 1936/37, and then her Hollywood career was over.
She beat Barbara Stanwyck in 1937, who went on to lose three more times, yet she had a successful 50 year career, so no, apart from the prestige at the time, they really are not that important.

[Fowl Fax]

She hasn't done too badly in recent years.

The Avengers and Hitchock last year.

[Takae]

She's rather generic, isn't she? Enjoyable when on screen, but forgotten when out of sight.

The problem is that she has the classic movie-star looks, but no distinctive personality or presence, which may explain why she generally doesn't produce a memorable performance. Most people seem to, for example, love Lost in Translation or A Girl With a Pearl Earring because of what the film represents, not particularly because of her performance; no matter how good it is.

[little-monster]

I agree, back in 2004 she seemed tipped for huge things. I loved her performance in Girl With A Pearl earring, but her movie choices have been a little questionable and like the person said above, she is generic.

Her music career was awful as well, but considering she won a tony, maybe she is much better as a stage work.

[Chairman___Meow]

Yeah but that adverts crap isnt it?

[degsyhufc]

She hasn't properly got her kit off yet.

[roger_50]

I just don't think she's picked the 'meatiest' roles that she could have done since LiT. It's been general popcorn fare, which has naturally ended up dropping her back in with the other popcorn actresses.

But....that's where the bigger paycheques are. Perhaps she's not even that worried about whether people have a high opinion of her acting. Maybe she just likes the job and does what well-paid stuff comes along. No doubt she could have chosen a serious drama over Avengers if she'd really wanted to challenge herself...

Although, she's already won her Oscar. So she doesn't exactly need to sign up to one of those intense, full-on roles to get attention (eg Berry with Monsters Ball) at any point in the future. She's dodged a bullet in that regard, by winning her Oscar so young and for such a low-key (but decent) performance.

[CELT1987]

Originally Posted by degsyhufc

She hasn't properly got her kit off yet.

Apart from the leaked photos that is!

[Big Boy Barry]

Her career is doing fine.

[jalal]

Bland actress, remember reading Woody Allen only picked her for one of his film because she was jewish???

[marsha_Cutiepie]

I really liked Scarlett in Lost In Translation (fab movie) but....I think it was more the fantastic movie/Bill Murry's performance were amazing and she benefited from this. Looks wise she is very pretty but a little plain and I hate to say it but in hollywood terms looks wise she is not as marketable as she was 5-8 years ago and if she didnt suceed then, she may have missed the boat. I think she was a good looking girl with a couple of great movies under her belt a few years back but i think lost the opportunity to capitalize on this - looking forward to her in the hitchcock movie though shall see.

[cunningham1471]

I don't think she is seen as a serious actress anymore because of the roles she chooses and is known for.
Since Vicky Barcelona (2008) she has done:

The Spirit (2008)
Iron Man 2 (2010)
We Brought A Zoo (2011)
Avengers Assemble (2012)
Hitchcock (2012)
Under the Skin (2013)
Don Jaun's Addiction (2013)
Captain America: The Winter Soldier [pre-production] (2014)
The Avengers 2 [rumoured] (2015)

Unless she fits in a few decent roles she is going to become known for the Black Widow role and not as a proper serious actress, especially if the rumoured Black Widow film gets made in the future.

[lil lexie]

gotta say, I haven't really enjoyed any of the films she's been in since Ghost World. She was good in VCB but overall, I hated that film. But Ghost World is right up there as one of my favourite films and Break Up remains one of my favourite albums, so I'm not gonna knock her.

[Mark A]

Hell yes, I bet she just can't sleep at night knowing that she's in the top one percent of best looking females in the world and was a multi-millionairess before she turned twenty, and lives a life that most folk would give their eye teeth to have.

I wish to hell my career had failed to deliver so much.

Regards

Mark

[RebelScum]

I find the "failed to deliver" suggestion totally ridiculous.

[roger_50]

To the last two posters, I think it's pretty obvious what the OP is getting at though. Stop being so needlessly pedantic.

Obviously she's making money and is a success in that sense. But that's not what is being talked about.

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by roger_50

To the last two posters, I think it's pretty obvious what the OP is getting at though. Stop being so needlessly pedantic.

Obviously she's making money and is a success in that sense. But that's not what is being talked about.

Who rattled your cage? The notion that her career has failed to deliver simply because she hasn't won enough awards is ridiculous. Hollywood hype is marketing, to expect career full of awards based on that hype is nothing short of naive.

[SoulGlo]

I don't think she cares about the awards that much.

Would have been interesting to see her in fincher's The girl with the dragon tattoo remake. She auditioned for the Lisbeth role but Rooney Mara got it in the end.

[roger_50]

Originally Posted by RebelScum

Who rattled your cage? The notion that her career has failed to deliver simply because she hasn't won enough awards is ridiculous. Hollywood hype is marketing, to expect career full of awards based on that hype is nothing short of naive.

Nobody rattled my cage.

Just pointing out that it's obvious - from a purely artistic/critical perspective (which is what is being discussed) - she could have chosen far more worthy/challenging roles if she'd wanted to. I don't doubt plenty would have been offered to her.

So in that sense, it's actually quite reasonable to say she hasn't delivered on her potential. All depends how you look at it.

[RebelScum]

Originally Posted by roger_50

Nobody rattled my cage.

Just pointing out that it's obvious - from a purely artistic/critical perspective (which is what is being discussed) - she could have chosen far more worthy/challenging roles if she'd wanted to. I don't doubt plenty would have been offered to her.

So in that sense, it's actually quite reasonable to say she hasn't delivered on her potential. All depends how you look at it.

Failure to deliver implies obligation. For there to be a failure to deliver there must also have been an obligation to deliver in the first place. The OP seems to be under the impression she is under some sort of obligation to chose worthy/challenging roles and win awards. Is she?

[roger_50]

No, 'failure to deliver' is more down to the context and perspective you look at something I'd say. Especially when it comes to anything artistic.

If we were talking about a bricklayer, then yes it would be a simple case of obligation (they'd have to lay x amount of bricks to fulfil their purpose).

But for something as abstract/open to analysis as film-acting/performing arts, etc, there's nothing wrong in taking the view a performer could have achieved more (artistically/critically) and therefore failed - for whatever reason, whether intentional or otherwise.