Keith Urban, talking to the New York Daily News‘ gossip scribes the other night, suggested that he and Nicole Kidman are about ready to settle down on their new farm in Tennessee. (Ah, if only Grant Wood were alive to paint that farm couple.) If so, the timing may be just right, since there’s a call for Kidman to retire from the screen. Guardian columnist John Patterson notes that Invasion (pictured) is about the tenth Kidman movie in a row to do middling-to-poor box office, and that includes her Oscar-winning turn in The Hours. In fact, Kidman hasn’t had a solid hit since The Others, six long years ago. Given a track record like that, who could blame her if she wanted to call it a day?
To me, it’s not a mystery why Kidman’s movies haven’t connected with audiences — she tends to choose either arcane art-house exercises (Fur, Dogville) or bland, glossy remakes of things that didn’t need remaking (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Bewitched, The Stepford Wives). Rather, the mystery is why she gets to keep having an A-list career without the box office to back it up.
Maybe it’s not such a mystery, though. Whether or not she sells tickets, Nicole Kidman is famous and (thanks to enduring interest in the years she spent married to Tom Cruise) will be for the rest of her life. It’s now possible for actors to keep getting cast in lead roles simply based on their continuing notoriety, which creates a perception that they’re in demand, regardless of actual box office. (Kidman’s Cold Mountain costar Jude Law seems an obvious example — hey, Chris Rock was right!) In fact, it’s been possible for some time now; Winona Ryder did it throughout the ’90s, as did Michelle Pfeiffer throughout the ’80s.
Notice how I haven’t mentioned talent. It’s not that I think any ofthese stars are untalented (I don’t), but rather, that talent isirrelevant. It’s not part of the equation; all that matters is fanfascination, and that’s measured in the ability to sell magazinesand get face time on the entertainment news TV shows, or attract comments to blog items, not in box officereceipts or in Oscar trophies. By that standard, Nicole Kidman willprobably never retire (just as Elizabeth Taylor, who hasn’t acted inyears and will probably never act again, has never retired from thefull-time career of being Elizabeth Taylor).
Still, I bet there are some stars you wish would just pack it in andstop trying to sell movie tickets. Here’s your chance to offer themearly-retirement advice.
Comments (1-30) of 136 Add your comment
JESSICA ALBA.
Jennifer Ansiton
No talent, none what so ever.
I hope box office is not the only criteria being used to decide whether an actor should retire or not. I hope TALENT goes into consideration. In which case, Nicole Kidman will be around for a long time to come. And all this talk of retirement will go the way of John Peterson’s writing ability when she connects with another great role and we all know she will.
I totally agree with you’re comment about Jennifer Ansiton. I don’t think she’s a good actress at all.
it’s past time for nk to retire. and i agree dc: time for aniston to go far far away. i’ve never understood the fascination with either of them.
Nicholas Cage. Please.
Ok, sorry but I’m getting defensive. First off, YES Jenniffer Maniston sucks, but Nicole? R U kidding? All I gotta say is, Cold Mountain, Moulin Rouge, Dead Calm. Watch those three movies again. Oh, and by the way, NOTHING is doing as well as it use to at the box office. Nothing except horror and Transformers. Wake up, in this age of downloading, and pirating, we can’t soley go by the box office counts. Also, wait for Australia before you make this decesion.
She should just retire from the Hollywood stuff that no one cares about (including her, based on her performances in them). But she is soooo good in Dogville, Portrait Of A Lady, The Others…
I read the first paragraph and got defensive. Then I read the rest. My vote for early retirement, yes Maniston.
I think she should retire if she wants to quit acting, not if her movies don’t do well at the box office. I do think you bring up a good point about how she manages to have an A-list career despite a lack of hits lately. Not that I begrudge her the career, necessarily.
Are there any stars who can bring in the same box office numbers that they brought in 5-10 years ago? The days of one star carrying films or series of films seems to be over. Nicole Kidman is in a position where she could sit back, live off what she has already made, and make interesting projects when they come up. I have more respect for actors who don’t always take the big blockbuster anyway.
Much as I hate to say it, Christopher Walken should hang it up and spare those who remember his great misfits and villains from the embarrassment of another “Balls of Fury” or “Kangaroo Jack”.
Lol @ Tom–Alba was the first person that popped in my head too. She was great on Dark Angel, but that just hasn’t translated to the big screen and I don’t think that it ever will. Nicole shouldn’t retire though. After all, as Susman pointed out, Michelle Pfeiffer coasted through the 80’s and yet twenty years later, something finally worked and we got a great performance in Hairspray.
If you mean Is it time for Kidman to retire from making GOOD movies, she retired about 10 years ago.
I like Nicole but she tends to veer to the art-house movies and that is why she will never be the “blockbuster opening” weekend actor.
I haven’t been to a theater in years since movies are on DVD or PPV within a couple of months. Why overpay to go to movies that are not even original anymore (TV remakes, horror remakes and superhero remakes). Key word here being remakes.
But if Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelia Jolie were to go away…it won’t bother me! (BTW, name one box office hit from them in the past 5 years…)
If she wants to retire thats her business, but she actually makes great movies and she actually has the talent! I hope she keeps acting but it’s not up to me. She’s a movie star with actual talent, forget the box-office or the tabloids.
Other actors who should call it a career are: Jamie Kennedy, Kate Hudson, Tea Leoni, Ryan Reynolds, Dane Cook, Ben Kingsley (sorry, I just can’t take that guy anymore) and Sean William Scott, Jennifer Garner and Shrek (I know he’s not a real person, but I’m starting to hate him nontheless)thanks for listening.
The fault isn’t with Nicole Kidman (or Jude Law, etc.) — it’s with a filmmaking system that no longer works. Back in the studio days, stars were more often put in movies that suited their talents, and the studios would develop stories specifically to show off particular movie-star personas. And SCRIPTS made movies, not “concepts,” particularly not concepts based on lame 30-year-old TV shows.
The studio system was restrictive, no doubt, and we’ll never go back to it. But if Hollywood could somehow learn how to (a) emphasize story again and (b) match the right performers to the right movies, I’m confident that Nicole (and everyone else in the article) would see strongly improved box office AND critical reception.
I see your Jennifer Aniston and raise you Tom Cruise, Catherine Zeta Jones, Jim Carrey, Renee Zelwegger, Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lopez and Halle Berry. As for Nicole, I’m actually really looking forward to “The Golden Compass” so I’m not ready to call her career a day just yet.
I want to see her His Dark Materials. If it is done right, she should be wonderful in it, and there are 2 obvious sequels to be made with her as a very important supporting lead.
Well, it’s still only Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock who always sell tickets on their name alone (I’m still gonna need to see Witherspoon do it one more time before I’d put her on their level).
I don’t get why some actresses get paid so much for never carrying a hit movie on their own. i.e. Cameron Diaz. The girl always had a bigger male star which made the movie a hit, and yet she got paid $20 million. She finally tested her own starpower with “The Sweetest Thing” and bombed.
I am forgetting the box office and the tabloids Rakeem, but I’m remembering Stepford Wives, The Invasion, Bewitched, Fur, The Interpreter, Dogville, Birthday Girl, Practical Magic, The Peacemaker, Portrait of a Lady. She’s beautiful, but she picks worse scripts than Angelina Jolie.
I used to HATE nicole kidman in the tom cruise days. but once they divorced, i started pulling for her. and she is fab actress. I just watched Moulin Rouge for the umpteenth time. She goes from goofy to heartbreaking in 10 seconds flat. she shouldn’t retire, she should stick to what she likes doing (art house movies) hell she has an Oscar, a ton of money, and a hot husband. she’s good to go.
Angelina Jolie, Cameron Diaz, Nicholas Cage, Lindsay Lohan…are a few pics for people who I could never see again in a movie and be fine. I don’t get why so many actors like them keep making bad/unsuccessful movies, while talented actors like THE Meryl Streep only appear in maybe one a year?
ben stiller!
andy dick
the wayans
ditto on dane cook
ice cube
cuba gooding jr
CARLOS MENCIA
ditto on alba, but she is nice to look at
keanu reeves
She’s a very capable actress with very poor decision-making skills, but she looks awesome in “Margot at the Wedding” and cool in “Golden Compass.” I’m really hoping the two pictures result in a comeback.
I have to say, I can’t wait for Margot at the Wedding. Looks like it’ll be a return to form, though it won’t be a box-office hit, that’s for sure.
P.S. I think you’re wrong about Portrait of a Lady, nathan. And Dogville. Also, The Peacemaker, Practical Magic and Birthday Girl were good fun, if not brilliant.
It amazes me how “actors” such as Kate Hudson and others constantly appear in new movies that usually tank at the box office. Who is banking these people? Is there a movie in the past year or two that hasn’t had an appearance by Jude Law in it? Granted, even the truly talented have been stuck in stinkers occassionally, but these people seem to be batting zero in terms of box office winners – and yet they continue to be in major films.
Realistically, how many actors are consistent box office draws? Maybe 30 to 40 at the most. How boring would it be if only sure things were given the chance to headline films? If we were to adhere to the idea that a six-year run of modest hits and duds would be cause for retirement, we would no longer see the following people in film: John Travolta, Sandra Bullock, Johnny Depp, Sean Penn, Samuel L. Jackson, John Cusack, et al. Furthermore, we would never have have had Bette Davis in “All About Eve”, Marlon Brando in “The Godfather”, and Katherine Hepburn in “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?” They were talented actors, each finishing years-long slumps prior to these legendary performances.
it’s not time for her to retire. it’s time for her to make better film choices and to STOP DOING BOTOX!!!