J Lo as Robert Redford's daughter?
-
candygirl16 — 19 years ago(April 12, 2006 06:29 AM)
In 99% of all J.Lo films she is with a white man. now that I think of it, the producers probably just want to use J.Lo because she's a big name and then surround her with white men to get a white audience. They mostly say it is better for box office. and they are probably right.
-
Jambie67 — 19 years ago(April 13, 2006 11:59 PM)
Even if she WERE playing Redford's daughter, so what? Haven't people ever heard of mixed marriages and mixed race children? Lots of white men have children with black or hispanic women. The laws of genetics are such that dominant traits usually come through. A blonde father and dark heaired/dark skinned mother usually result in dark-skinned/dark-haired children.
Would it be insane if Halle Berry played Redford's daughter? After all, her mother in real life is WHITE. -
Fisant911 — 19 years ago(April 14, 2006 06:30 PM)
I agree she played the heck out of jean she did great why does her race have to affect her characters portrayal.If she does good her race shouldnt matter and she has said before the only way for latinos to make it int he business is to go after every type of role not just type cast you have to argue witht he writers and the director to make the race of your character irrelavent.Thats why she is able to be in many movies and gets alot of dough because she can play anything from a mexican
illegal immigrant (my family) to a cuban slut(blood and wine) to an native american/white sut (Uturn) to a white girl (the cell,an unfinished life ,enough etc.)
race shouldnt matter talent should all actors audition for roles well most and they get the part because they did good in the audition. -
candygirl16 — 19 years ago(April 14, 2006 06:49 PM)
She is in a lot of movies that aren't that concerned with box office though.
.
What a silly statment. Every movie wants to garner a big box office.
on top of that she is one of the most commercial actresses of our time. -
chains01 — 19 years ago(April 14, 2006 10:44 PM)
Okay, let me clarify what I'm talking about here candygirl. There are movies that pander to the audience and movies that don't. Movies that pander to the audience are concerned with box office, movies that don't aren't. Not every movie that's made panders. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Clerks, etc. These are movies that are good stories/movies that don't pander, but because of it they resonate with the audience. Not every movie made plays to an audience every whim, that's what I'm talking about when I say she's in a lot of movies that aren't that concerned with box office. She's a very commercial person, but she's had the ability to step into a few roles that aren't Maid in Manhattan.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist.-Verbal Kint -
dr.gonzo-4 — 19 years ago(June 26, 2006 02:38 PM)
What a quagmire this thread turned out to beLet me ask you guys a question to ponder for a bit, why is it that you can sit through a movie with aliens or werewolves or catastrophic natural disasters and yet the race of someone's daughter-in-law can cause this much heated debate? IT'S A MOVIE!!! ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!!! In movie land, Robert Redford could play a purple man with a lime-green daughter-in-law. And for those of you who think film should be "an accurate depiction of reality," we do have those, but they're called "documentaries."
David Lynch once said that we should look at films in terms of dreams rather than reality. Film begins in the mind as a thought and then it is developed through imagination. Reality is bound by rules and restrictions, whereas the imagination and dreams are free from all that and in that sense are infinite. Film should be looked at as a visual interpretation of someone's imagination or a group of imaginations working together. -
candygirl16 — 19 years ago(April 15, 2006 02:07 PM)
And how many of J.Lo's roles have been "just for the art"? Even if you can name three, it does not compare to the others that she made and likewise made her. TO get to this point in her career she has done sleeper films that lead up to her commercial films. now most of her movies are commercial, because they are the ones that have made her worth over $100 million.
-
dlfan123 — 19 years ago(April 18, 2006 07:12 PM)
"I read the book, and it never mentioned that she was of a white race. You almost assumed she was white."
I seem to remember a reference in the book that Jean's ancestors were coal miners in Cornwall - or something like that - giving the impression of a caucasian background. But as you said, ethnicity wasn't an important factor in the character and I think she did a fine job.
Ebert and Roeper just reviewed the film again (for the 3rd time on thier show) it was Roeper's Video Pick of the Week and Ebert made the comment that "sadly Jennifer Lopez gives some of her best performances in movies that most people don't see." -
darkstarr_drgga — 19 years ago(May 13, 2006 07:20 PM)
have you ever thought that maybe its the roles that she is trying out for. i seriously doubt all the hollywood types are making these movies simply to perpetuate some "social structure". hollywood is about making money, nothing more, nothing less. that entails getting the best talent you can at a certain price. if anyone is to blame then it is JLo for taking the parts. maybe she is the one trying to make a statement, not hollywood.