Never known for her demure nature, Michelle Rodriguez spoke her mind during the Battle: Los Angeles panel when asked if she’d ever take on some Read the full post.
Latest News
- 'Idol' Top 2: Who won each week?
- Joan Rivers to guest on 'Drop Dead Diva'
- 'X-Men': Gay wedding storyline in the works
- Brad Pitt: Killer role at Cannes
- 'Lost': Damon Lindelof has 'no regrets'
- 'Walking Dead': Season 3 teaser posted
- Chris Harrison's 'Bachelorette' blog
- 'House' series finale: Ken Tucker's take
Find Movies and Showtimes
Powered by MovieTickets.com
Choose Your Movie
All movies
Most Commented
Top 5 Most Read
- ‘House’ series finale recap: ‘Everybody Dies’…did House?
- ‘House’ series finale review: All’s well that ends musically
- ‘Celebrity Apprentice’: Arsenio Hall talks about Trump’s verdict, being reunited with Aubrey…
- 20 Best TV Series Finales Ever
- 'The Bachelorette' recap: The Lovers, the Dreamers, and Emily
She is so awesome.
I completely agree with her! We need more strong, female characters.
I love Hilary Swank’s portrayal of Teena Brandon in “Boys Don’t Cry” and cheered when she won the Academy Award. And by reading Michelle’s response, it didn’t seem at all like she was taking a swipe at strong performances…. but rather, at the industry that creates only two types of roles for women: the macho badass and/or the victim. And I must say… She is completely RIGHT. Women roles do fall within those two, and the “Erin Brockovich’ of movieland are rare and few. And like she mentioned, there is a potential in strong/independent roles. Michelle Rodriguez rocks:her honesty is refreshing as is her intelligence. Her point is that women actress should have more complex, interesting, independent roles, without the compromise of making those roles limited (by screenwriter’s perspectives). I will always cheer for the ‘Hilary Swanks’ and ‘Kate Winslet’s', but I also love the bad-asses like ‘Jolie”…… and Michelle Rodriguez.
I agree with her!! She’s absolutely correct… Seriously, it’s quite obvious if you really think about it. Rock on, Michelle!! Keep kicking ass in, and outside, the movies!
michelle is spot on. why do awards only go to actresses who play ‘damaged’ characters. and when julia roberts plays a smart, strong, confident woman, press/critics are always saying the performance is not worthy. why? because she doesn’t have some weepy scene where she’s strung out or beaten up? those types of scenes/characters are meant shock and awe but that doesn’t mean the acting’s any better.
But Julia Roberts won tons of awards and acclaim for Erin Brockovich. She even beat Ellen Burstyn playing as damaged a character as you can imagine. Sally Field won for Norma Rae. Sandra Bullock for the Blind Side. Jodie Foster for The Silence of the Lambs. Susan Sarandon for Dead Man Walking. The awards should go to great performances. Lots of strong heroines have won. In fact, playing those roles are the easiest way to get a nomination (Meryl Streep in Silkwood and Charlize Theron in North Country). Maybe the victim thing gets attention because it gets the sympathy of voters.
That was actually a stupid response because they asked about “lighter” roles meaning comedies. How is playing a rape victim a lighter role? And those stories should have been told. Those are true stories. And Jodie Foster didn’t play her character in the Accused as a weak victim. She played her as strong, defiant, and tough as nails out for justice. It was an important story that needed to be told.
Zero class, as usual.
She’s awesome. In my personal opinion, she’s way more convincing as a tough, independent action heroine. And though her character wasn’t the most-loved, she showed some vulnerability in her portrayal of Ana Lucia on Lost.
I meant to say she’s more convincing than Angelina Jolie, though I do commend Jolie for expanding the industry’s view of what women can and can’t do, particularly in action movies.