I was reading one of the online list articles; this one was about celebrities who took a career-killing role. One of the entries was for Meg Ryan and the item talked about her appearance in a 2000 movie called Proof of Life, which I don’t recall ever hearing about. It’s an action thriller where Ryan plays the wife of a man who gets kidnapped in South America.
Here’s what the article said:
Proof Of A Damaged Career
Meg Ryan, once the reigning queen of rom-com, took a detour that left fans wondering if they had mistakenly switched to a thriller. After charming our socks off in countless heartwarming movies, the plot twist came with “Proof of Life.” It was like watching your favorite rom-com heroine stumble into an action movie by accident. Suddenly, the sound of moms and daughters bonding over “You’ve Got Mail” was replaced by confused murmurs of “Proof of what now?”
“She was America’s sweetheart. I remember how Dads liked her, and Moms felt safe taking their teenage daughters to watch her movies. Then that movie happened.”
What was it in Proof of Life that upset people? Or are people projecting real life events back on to the movie? (Ryan had an affair with her co-star Russell Crowe and left her husband.) If people were going to be upset by one of Ryan’s movies roles, I would have figured it would be In the Cut, which came out in 2003 and featured Ryan doing some nude scenes.
I don’t know the movie… but that article isn’t saying that there was a plot twist inProof of Life. They’re saying that the movie itself was a plot twist. Not even necessarily that the movie was bad, just that it was so completely different from everything Ryan had done before that it soured her previous fans on her. They used to be able to say “Oh, Meg Ryan is in this, this must be the sort of movie I like”, and then she starred in a movie that wasn’t the sort of movie they liked, and so now they could no longer blindly trust her movies.
I saw that movie. It was fine. But no real reason for Meg Ryan to be in it. Pretty much any actress could be dropped into that role and have done just fine. My gut says it was more like a Julianne Moore kind of job, but Meg was… fine.
Apparently Meg Ryan had been offered the role of Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs but turned it down for being too dark.
But she had already “gone out of her lane” in Courage Under Fire which was 4 years before Proof of Life, but also made You’ve Got Mail in between the two.
So I don’t know that Proof of Life was necessarily “career killing,” but it was certainly a different turn in her career, where maybe she realized she was about to turn 40 and couldn’t be “America’s sweetheart” forever. She still makes those movies, but now she’s the protagonists’ mother.
As noted, it wasn’t the movie itself, but the flaming train wreck her public life became during the movie.
America’s sweetheart should not be boffing her co-star and abandoning her husband.
I checked the wiki articles for Meg and Proof of Life. They are only superficial summations, if even that. The articles don’t convey what a BIG DEAL it was at the time.
Yesyes, her personal life is none of our business. i agree. I’m just reporting what it was like at the time.
I remember the movie because it was a major release and I saw most major releases in the theater at the time. Also around peak Russell Crowe as a movie star. While internet gossip was certainly a thing, there were also a lot of daily/weekly/monthly print papers and mags dedicated to celebrities/showbiz/entertainment. Plus all the Extra, Inside Edition, E! gossip tv shows. So with all those sources, I don’t remember exactly where I read about it, but it seemed to be “everywhere” at the time. She had an affair with Crowe, which may or may not have factored into the demise of her marriage (I always assume every celebrity has affairs and most of them have abusive tendencies), but it was very public and covered at the time.