>The question here is - is Hollywood's siren song so >seductive that people w/ ability are willing to take on dumb >and dumber roles? Monica Belluci balances out tripe like >"Tears of the Sun" w/ roles such as "Irreversible" - >regardless of how gratuitous that film was, it was at least >food for thought and unsettling and sure to inspire both >derision and praise into the future...
two "c"s in "bellucci", but that's a minor complaint.
i wish it seemed like something more than universal appeal and money, but shit, even i'm a weak person. if you offered me universal recognition and cash, i'd be on the first flight out to hollywood to costar with josh hartnett and david spade in whatever mcg was directing.
beskinsale was on the daily show, i believe last week, and mentioned that recently she moved out to los angeles.
for starters, it seems ironic that i find out she went to oxford, because i figured she was just another "dumb attractive" type, but carried herself quite well in the conversation. she spoke of hollywood from her (and other's) perspective as being this selling of the soul, whose slightest mention conjures shrieks.
she seems to be aware of any "sacrafices" she's making. but as to why?
dj shadow told you: it's the money.
now granted it would appear actors/actresses are more comfortable finacially than those in the music business, but when you can catch eyes, you get offered certain roles, sometimes possibly exclusively, and you gotta jump a couple times.
i figure if she's doing "pearl harbor" and "underworld", what is she turning down?