I haven't watched the movie so I can't comment about this particular film but sometimes it's not about anachronism but about writing good roles, even if they are housewives or prim or both, for women. Even when the context was very different, women were still human beings!
Now this film is clearly not about the wife but about two men. Those are the important roles! They already made what it looks like a forced "strong woman" role with Rachel Brosnahan's character so poor Buckley had to accept the probably ungrateful role of the girlfriend/wife of the protagonist. The question is why she accepted it if she wasn't happy with how it was written? Probably because even when she had already a breakthrough performance in her CV, the much more popular Chernobyl, in which she played a stubborn and I guess kind of heroic housewife, by the way! (although obviously it was stupid to let her meet her husband! That wasn't actually heroic, it was dumb!), it wasn't released yet so in some ways she was still an up and coming actress.
Anyway, probably her criticism is valid but I don't think it's very smart to say it a month before the release! I don't think the studio would be happy!
So you're saying her comment was more about the poor writing of her role rather than it was a thankless task of a role because of the time it took place in?
Because I didn't get that vibe from her remark. But maybe I was just interpreting it that way because that element is a particular bugaboo with me (anachronistic attitudes that just don't suit the time period of the film).
If it was a criticism of the actual writing of the film on her part... well I certainly can agree wholeheartedly that she should be sidelined if and when there is any publicity "tour" for the movie.
And I would have to add, that it also seems like a very foolish thing for her to do career wise because although she may be considered an up and coming actor now (after her exposure in Chernobyl) she certainly isn't enough of a big star to bite the hand that feeds her. If I were a future producer I might think twice before putting her in my cast seeing how she would speak negative of a movie and yet accept the paycheck beforehand.
"You're going into the water... short-arse!" - Sherlock
Maybe I didn't expressed it well, I thought she is saying it was a thankless role. Not that the script is bad in general but that her role is not interesting enough for her to "have a valve for expression" But I read it again and probably I'm wrong and she is just talking about her character not having "a valve for expression" because the times! The "while" working with Benedict Cumberbatch is a positive but the role made me sad... kind of confused me but maybe it's just EW's phrasing and not her!
Post by onebluestocking on Sept 1, 2020 22:17:58 GMT
I just thought she meant that the character was very repressed, probably due to the role of women at that time and "stiff upper lip" culture, and she is described as lonely and suspicious. She does sound like a sad character. I don't think it was wrong of her to say, or critical of the movie, or anything that should upset the producers.
Surely you are right, onebluestocking I was confused because it seemed to me the paragraph suggested that the positive thing about the project was that she worked with BC but that it was her "saddest" role as if playing that "sad" role was something negative or a con. Then they included the quote about not having "a valve of expression" so I thought she was saying she, the actress, didn't have a "valve of expression" playing it but she actually didn't say "while" (as in "while I enjoyed working with BC, I wasn't happy with that character"). She only said that she loved working with BC and that "she thought the role was the saddest (of her recent roles?)" so now I think those two paragraphs probably weren't even related until EW edited them.
I didn’t read anything into her comments. She seems to be responding to a question about her character - married to Benedict’s character, suspicious of his actions. in a time when women didn’t have much of say in what their husbands did at work.