Why has Scarlett Johansson's career failed to deliver (thus far)?
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.
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.
0
Comments
Sounds like a top hono(u)r!
She seems to be doing alright to me.
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.
The Avengers and Hitchock last year.
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.
Her music career was awful as well, but considering she won a tony, maybe she is much better as a stage work.
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.
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.
I wish to hell my career had failed to deliver so much.
Regards
Mark
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.
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.
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?
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.
The OP made in clear in the post; hype should equate to awards. So in effect your bricklayer analogy is not that far off the mark from the OP's point of view, which is why it is totally ridiculous.
It is however naive to place expectations on an actor's choices/performances based on the falsehood that is Hollywood hype, more so if those expectations go on to affect the analysis of their choices/performance.