A luvvie having a hissy fit is always light relief from the encircling gloom and angst. Except in the following instance it may have resulted in a decent film critic losing his job for no other reason than doing what he was paid for. Dennis Harvey writing for Variety suggested – shock horror – that Carey Mulligan might not have been the best fit for her role in Promising Young Woman, while at the same time commending her performance as “skilful and entertaining.”
She took umbrage at the thought he was saying she was not hot enough to pull off the role and took that as an inappropriate slur for 2020.
A talented actress with awards for various performances including Shame, Collateral, Wildlife, The Great Gatsby, she seemed to be suggesting that her looks were not relevant in her profession and should not invite comment. Which is so off the scale for idiocy it hardly bears saying. Both sexes, genders whatever and the myriad inbetweeners, are hired on the basis of their looks.
Vanity Fair issue an apology for which they should be ashamed and the critic has now spoken out to defend himself.
My first thought was – she has a fragile ego. And lo and behold she has a Gemini Sun on the focal point of a Yod to Pluto sextile Neptune. Such a Sun starts off life with low self-esteem, a sense of inferiority and a difficulty establishing a strong sense of identity. But as with all quincunxes, especially Yods, there is a swing between under-confidence and over-confidence – too little will power and then too much.
This very public intervention evidently coincided with the Oscars run up and hadn’t been mentioned as an issue before. But she may come to regret being advised to air the gripe since she’s running into a panicky, undermining tr Neptune square her Mars from mid March through till mid April just before the Oscars, so there could be a backlash. She has two very mild Jupiterian influences over April 25th and the Oscars ceremony, but that’s all. 2022 looks a more upbeat year for her.
If Variety fired. the critic then it is on them. I have not heard about this. Margot Robbie has 2 Oscar nominations so she has bee taken seriously.
And, BTW, “Variety” / “Vanity Fair” distinction isn’t all irrelevant. “Variety” went from a daily to a weekly in 2013, “Vanity Fair” is a monthly. “Variety” is exclusively show business magazine, while “Vanity Fair” covers larger society issues. “Young Promising Women” was premiered at Sundance Film Festival, which means a single critic watches maybe up to 5-6 films a day and critiques at least 2-3. I think I wouldn’t be lying if I said a Festival at least triples the workload compared to a regular week both for critics and their editors, especially for a daily or even a weekly, who do need to have specials ready fast. Therefore, it’s understandable mistakes are made.
Marjorie, Dennis Harvey writes for “Variety”, not “The Vanity Fair”.
Also, as someone who studied Film & Television Studies and was taught to write a “professional” critique, I have to say that Dennis Harvey’s initial critique was worded horribly. While his apology seems sincere and should be accepted, most commentators here really don’t seem to understand where the misunderstanding/controversy rose from.
The film is about a young woman who revenges her friend’s rape and suicide by going to clubs, picking up doucy guys, taking them home and maybe hurting them. Harvey’s – who, as he says at “The Guardian” is a 60-year-old gay man – wording suggested this was unrealistic because of Carey Mulligan’s looks, when anyone who has been clubbing outside Hollywood on this Millenium knows that it’s quite the contrary. Because really, most men looking for casual sex will not to approach the prettiest girl in the room for an one night stand. There will be too much competition. It’s the “7s and 8s with a nice rack” they go after, and this is especially true for douces who are “playing The Game”, reading pick up literature and thinking about strategies.
Not to say Carey Mulligan couldn’t have handled it better, but mostly, this seems another case where Boomers miss Millenial references and mount holy rage over a non-issue.
I like her as a actor. It did seem a bit shady to compare her to Margot Robbie. Robbie is the more conventional blond and beautiful actress that Hollywood promotes. Maybe Mulligan has lost out on roles to the Robbie types hence the sensitivity. The other side of this issue is that Robbie has never been taken seriously as an actor because of her looks.
Obviously, looks matter to a certain extent when an actor is considered for a role. There is a general consensus in modern-day society as to the definition of beauty ; it is partly why some people become sex symbols or Hollywood stars. Actors can be miscast on the basis of looks, regardless of talent. Sylvester Stallone wouldn’t convince if he was cast as a tormented ballet dancing physics professor but he would look the part if cast as a boxer… cinema films are a visual medium. Carey Mulligan is not doing a radio programme, and a critic is entitled to say she does not, in his opinion, look the part.
Depending on the time of birth, there’s another yod pointing at the Virgo moon – with Aries venus sextile Aqua Jupiter. Even if it’s not a yod, there’s quincunx involving the moon.
You can really see how the tension of a yod plays out in that one with Aries-Aqua being so full of themselves and serving Virgo moon being insecure about feelings and over-focused on details.
Would have missed the general themes of the critic’s comments and taken umbrage over the one detail that piqued her.
I have always liked her as an actor – she has a kind of wounded presence on screen that gives her characters depth. But with tr. Neptune opposing her natal Moon in the first house and activating her Mars opp Uranus both square Moon t-square she must be feeling very sensitive to criticism and in this case over-reacted.
I think this will backfire on her hugely as the public (and the predominant male industry she is in) will not take to these comments. It screams of Jupiter-sized pretensions and trying to jump on the current bandwagon of the women’s movement. Only she had used a useless, trivial excuse and tried to make a mountain out of a molehill to be relevant in the zeitgeist. Never was a fan of her. It perplexes me how well she has done when all I see is a talent limited to TV. James Corden is another. How do such people garner great fame? Interesting it’s yet another annoying Gemini acting as a limelight vacuum for relevancy again!