I think Jennifer Garner runs the very real risk of being another Sarah Michelle Gellar–making your name off of a cult-hit as a character who is cutest when somber, has sparks of humor but is mostly serious, and intensely physical (as in, grade A ass-kicker).
SMG has not been able to transcend this image, and recent attempts at horror or romantic comedies show that she’s just not very good. Maybe she doesn’t have much practice at it, and maybe she’s too used to inhabiting Buffy to find her head in other characters, but it’s like her (possibly limited) talent dovetailed nicely with the perfect role.
Garner was better in 13GO30 than SMG’s been in any non-Buffy role, but it was still not the greatest of fits. And she’s been in Alias for so long, she may have a hard time not thinking in that mindset, as other traditional, non-genre roles (straight-forward drama or romance) come along.
Yeah, I’d love to see her play a bad girl, too. Or some role that’s totally against character, like a crazed bloodthirty murderer. I admit that Elektra wasn’t as good as I hoped it would be and 13 Going on 30 was just too fluffy to be taken seriously. I hope she takes part in more serious projects in the near future. Other than that, I think the general consensus is that Jen Garner has a lot of potential, but can take her acting to the next level if given the chance. Anyone else?
If this is a high school assignment (which I think it is), then I doubt it, unless the teacher’s been teaching since the '60’s.
Yes, but the TV show and two of the three major flicks are all in the same genre, and she’s playing a similar character. It’s her range that’s basically untested.
And I agree with ArchiveGuy about Sarah Michelle Gellar, and I think the comparison is apt. As big of a Buffy fan as I am, it pains me to admit it, but SMG just isn’t a real good actress; she just happened into the perfect role for her. Only time will tell whether the same will happen to Jennifer Garner.
Of course, I did like SMG in Cruel Intentions, but that’s for entirely different reasons than her acting ability.
Range? How is range defined by the genre? Are you sure you’re not just being a genre snob? Even Garner herself remarked on the fact that Alias plays on all sorts of different stuff and if you’ve seen the show, then I daresay you are obliged to agree; the show deals with love, betrayal, resentment, subterfuge, anger, joy, &c.
Besides, how does range, whatever it means, determine whether she is a good actress? I wonder how that standard would work in other fields: Yeah, Charlotte Church can sing her genre, but she doesn’t have any range. So you wouldn’t want to do a paper about her as a singer. I’ve never heard Norah Jones do any trip hop, so she certainly has no range. Hawking is a good theoretical physcists, but applied physics?! Meh. He’s got no range. Isaac Mizrahi (sp?) used to suck; but now that he does clothes for K-Mart he is great—'cos he’s got range. Vonnegut does great fiction, but his term paper on Vonnegut only got a C. He’s got no range.
To be fair, she didn’t ever say that Jennifer Garner has no range, just that it’s untested. I think it’s fair to say that Norah Jones’ range is untested when it comes to yodeling.
Oh, and if anyone happens to know Jennifer Garner, please let her know that I’d be more than happy to personally test her “range”.
