Johansson and History

Nobody’s bothered by Scarlett Johansson agreeing to play the title role in Mary, Queen of Scots in a forthcoming mid-budgeted historical drama on top of already playing Mary Boleyn (older sister of Natalie Portman‘s Anne) in The Other Boleyn Girl for producer Scott Rudin and Columbia Pictures? The two characters were almost alive at the same time. (Anne Boleyn was born in 1504 and died of a severed head in 1536. Mary Queen of Scots was born in 1542 and died in early 1587.) I don’t mean to carp, but I already have issues with Johansson being in period dramas in the first place.

14 thoughts on “Johansson and History

  1. JD on said:

    Is there anything you don’t have issues with?

  2. Scarlett has gone past overexposure a long time ago, yet the prospect of seeing her and Natalie Portman together on screen sounds interesting, and not just for the obvious reasons (i.e. corseted eye candy). I can just picture discussions about who is a better actress and who stole the movie from whom (my money is on Portman to deliver the goods and Johansson to underwhelm in her performance, but that’s just me).

  3. Scarlett does have some limitations, but what’s good about her should only improve. Some of her critics ignore how young she is and that she is still learning how to act. She may never be a Hepburn (either one) or a Streep, but the camera certainly does love her. Except for The Island, she makes interesting choices. My interest in Black Dahlia, which I’m slightly embarrassed to say I almost liked, perked up whenever she was on screen. And JD is right. I’ve been reading JW since the Mr. Hollywood days with great pleasure. He alerts me to things I’m not aware of. His quirky opinions are entertaining. Yet lately, he doesn’t seem aware of how increasingly negative he is becoming. Perhaps it’s been some time since he’s catch a ride on the nookie train. Meanwhile, maybe Scarlett and Sofia could corner him in some dark LA alley and make a case for themselves with a couple of baseball bats.

  4. by the way, the hottie-in-a-corset movie i really want to see is kirsten dunst in curtis hanson’s ‘the crimson petal and the white.’ great director, great source novel. i wonder if they’re still going forward with this film.

  5. So Scarlett likes period dramas. So what? She’s an actress. At least she doesn’t like some much more inane genre. And why does it matter if Mary and Mary were almost contemporaries? They aren’t the same person. I just don’t understand the complaint here.

  6. If you have doubts about her in period dramas, maybe this’ll be good practice, yes?
    Two Mary character round and about the same time is actually kind of interesting in a way.

  7. Scarlett has gone past overexposure a long time ago, yet the prospect of seeing her and Natalie Portman together on screen sounds interesting, and not just for the obvious reasons (i.e. corseted eye candy). I can just picture discussions about who is a better actress and who stole the movie from whom (my money is on Portman to deliver the goods and Johansson to underwhelm in her performance, but that’s just me).

  8. I’m almost surprised that Portman would want to be in a period piece with Johansson. Say what you will about Scarlett, but she definitely has the goods to fill out the costumes. Natalie, as beautiful as she is, definitely does not. Looking back on Keira in POTC, though, I must admit that pushup bras can do wonders.

  9. If memory serves, Scarlett Johansson has never done a photo shoot for Maxim or Stuff or FHM, etc.
    She probably would’ve gotten an Oscar nomination for “Lost in Translation” if her campaign had been for Best Actress, not Best Supporting Actress.
    Doug

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>