I just watched X-Men First Class, and I’ve concluded it was genius casting and writing by the Mad Men creators. She is gorgeous, but she is not an especially good dramatic actress. That blank, low affect personality is not acting it’s all her.
The opinions of her co-stars on Mad Men are apparentlydivided. The fact that her character is portrayed as somehow less sympathetic than Don Draper puzzles me; I think they’re both fun-to-watch narcissistic twits.
She is a terrible actress. Take a gander at the forgettable Liam Neeson vehicle Unknown to get a feel for her wide emotional range.
She’s briefly in Love Actually (Wisconsin bar girl). It’s the only time I’ve seen her play a different character. The performance does nothinh to contradict your theory.
I think it stems from the fact that while Don and Betty are both lousy parents, unlike him she seems to actively hate her children.
I think of it as the “Andie MacDowell” approach (after Sex, Lies and Videotape where she fit her character) - write a character that fits within the narrow confines of what the actor is capable of.
X-Men was a role outside Jones’ box.
(Again …)
She was a completely different person in Swedish Auto. I practically didn’t recognize her.
So in 2006 she was still a good actress.
I think she is a “fragile” person, mentally. She hasn’t handled the effects of the Mad Men fame well and she is no longer the person she once was. (Which, unfortunately, doesn’t bode well for her upcoming child.)
Details?
I don’t think the 1960’s setting did her any favors, though. I just saw her as Betty Draper in her underwear.
Which isn’t a terrible thing, poor acting aside.
She had a small role in Pirate Radio, which isn’t worth watching, even to see JJ in a small role that did not challenge her particularly.
Just because you don’t have range doesn’t mean you aren’t doing a good job with the role you have.
If you only have one note, but play that note well, it’s still a good note. She is brilliant on Mad Men, it doesn’t matter if she is capable of similar brilliance elsewhere.
The only other thing I’ve seen her in is The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (awesome movie). She’s not cold and aloof like Betty Draper, but she’s repressed, and it’s that perfect note that NAF1138 describes.
I was unfamiliar with her work before I saw her hosting SNL, and I was not impressed. I’m sure that’s not an easy gig if you don’t have a comedy/improv background, but most hosts at least take a credible stab at it and have some fun with it. She just seemed bored with the whole thing, and was flat, dull, and devoid of personality and comic timing in every single sketch.
Applying the SNL test, she was a horrible host while Jon Hamm did quite well, twice.
Yes, because doing well on SNL is a credible metric for judging actors. :dubious:
It is a metric of certain abilities, yes.
And I think that’s ridiculous. If you have no range, you can’t act. You’re just being yourself. Anyone can be themselves. It’s just luck that being yourself happens to coincide with a role, not talent.
And I disagree with that. The character may be that of the actor, but the actions and emotions the actor displays onscreen are fake. If George Clooney playing George Clooney convinces me that George Clooney’s heart is breaking right in front of me, how is that not good acting?
She’s pretty, distant, smokes a lot… she was absolutely like Betty Draper.
Maybe the one movie when she shows some range, namely, smiles every once in a while instead of looking bored and annoyed, is nothing less than that masterpiece for the ages: “American Pie 3: American Wedding”.
If the only emotion Clooney can display is him looking heartbroken, yeah, that would make him an even worse thespian than he already is.
Barring his acting in the Coen movies, of course. Completely different actor then.