Nicole Kidman's 5 Bravest Roles

Features
by Jessica Kiang
June 20, 2013 3:03 PM
15 Comments
  • |

"Dogville" (2003)
Of the many epithets that have been attached to Lars von Trier’s name over the years -- enfant terrible, provocateur, genius, misogynist, Nazi -- one of the stickiest has been “torturer of actresses” (you can read about his bust-up with “Dancer in the Dark” star Bjork here, along with other notable actor/director spats). And Kidman was certainly not immune to his hectoring, temperamental ways, with director and star reportedly taking frequent long walks so they could shout at each other in private. But whether the working relationship was better or worse than with his other leading ladies, the performance Kidman gave is among the best he’s ever elicited (and remember both Bjork and Kirsten Dunst won Cannes Best Actress trophies, and Emily Watson was nominated for an Oscar, for their roles in von Trier movies), and definitely among the best she’s ever given. On the one hand it’s a gift of a role for an actress ambitious to show her range, of course, tracing an arc from naivety and innocence through increasingly gruesome psychological and sexual victimization, to powerlessness and hopelessness, before building back up and culminating in a towering act of revenge that wouldn’t seem amiss in a Park Chan-wook movie. But the film’s experimental theatricalism, and hyper-unreal stylization means it could easily have run the risk of alienating the viewer from the human drama and losing the performance or worse, rendering it ridiculous, within the avant-garde trappings. But Kidman is again fearless, and makes us believe the environment through sheer power of her own conviction in her performance.

The Paperboy” (2012)
Ah well. For every few gambles that pay off there has to be at least one that doesn’t, right? And boy, Kidman’s all-in, bet-the-farm-and-throw-in-them-gator-hides-too roll of the dice on Lee Daniels’ “The Paperboy” did not pay off. Which actually makes it an interesting and honest addition to this list -- after all, if all daring choices guaranteed even a qualified triumph, there’d be nothing truly daring about them, would there? The instinct for unembarrassed trust in the director’s vision that marks some of her most interesting collaborations is also on display here, but Daniels is no Kubrick, Campion, Glazer or von Trier. Instead his impulse seems to be to coach Kidman (and in fairness, the rest of the cast who rise/sink to the occasion in accordance with their talents too) into avoiding as much as she can any approximation of real human behavior. But whether it’s the headline-grabbing, pun-ready moment when she pisses on Zac Efron or whether she’s causing John Cusack to spontaneously ejaculate by writhing and touching herself flanked by near-strangers at a prison interview, Kidman flings herself into the role, such as it is, purring and clawing and pouring herself wholly into some kind of platonic ideal mould of a hypersexualized white trash woman with a taste for bad boys.The whole thing plays at such a lurid pitch of straight-up bad taste, that perhaps the only unforgivable crime you could have committed as an actor already contractually obliged to complete filming would have been to back out, even a little, to try to wink or nod or allow even the slightest note of irony to creep in to your performance. It’s a credit to Kidman’s professionalism that that never happens, though we fear the results would make us a bit gunshy about committing to as risky a role in the near future.

Birth” (2004)
“Hey, let’s go see that movie where Nicole Kidman takes a bath with then kisses a 10 year-old boy who she thinks is the reincarnation of her dead husband!” was what pretty much nobody said back in October 2004, ensuring Jonathan Glazer’s uncategorizable, flawed but eerily beautiful “Birth” went gently into the good night of box office obscurity. But while maybe a hard sell for even the most adept of arthouse marketers back then, it’s a film that has gradually grown in retrospective acclaim, contrary to some poisonous reviews at the time, and when people do go back and rediscover it, one of the things that can’t be denied is the shimmering loveliness of Kidman’s performance. Yes, the film plays to her patrician, statuesque beauty, but the tenderness she brings to her role, the edge of a grief so old it seems almost physically painful to have it flare back up into hope, is a special sort of lightning in a bottle: a thousand things go on behind her eyes, and yet she retains, as the film’s tone requires, a sliver of unknowability. And for the majority of the running time, she and her director again seem in perfect sync, with Glazer weaving the film around her, as she betrays with only tiny moments, the oceanic feelings inside. The underplaying is vital in a film that has potential to become silly or salacious but actually retains a tone of uneasy intrigue throughout. Well, almost throughout -- the great misfortune is that the film’s ending undoes a great deal of the compelling and uniquely-voiced work up to that point, both over- and under-explaining a plot which till then operated more on the level of fairytale than real-world what-if. But even as it’s crumbling around her, Kidman retains her focus, and her grasp on her character and our attention.

Narrowly missing out on a spot in this list were Kidman’s turns in Noah Baumbach’s “Margot at the Wedding” in which she throws herself into a deeply unsympathetic role (but we did feature it in Essentials, in addition the downbeat but minutely observed "Rabbit Hole" and "To Die For"), and “Fur” which despite an intriguingly offbeat premise ends up just too slight to count among her more daring choices. "Moulin Rouge!"which was of course a challenge from the point of view of the singing is otherwise less about performance than costuming, choreography and design, but she’s also terrific in a gruelling early TV miniseries “Bangkok Hilton” that came about before her Hollywood breakout. And there could have been any of several more -- Kidman, even in genre fare, has matured into an actress who can almost always be relied upon to commit to a project and a director completely -- an act that requires a certain courage every single time. Before the end of the year we’ll be seeing her possibly cameo in “Anchorman 2 and after that channel Grace Kelly  in “Grace of Monaco.” In the meantime, we’re aware how subjective an assessment of a role’s risk value can be, so feel free to tell us in the comments why our list should actually have included “Trespass,” “Australia” and “Practical Magic” instead.

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

15 Comments

  • Ian | September 8, 2013 2:52 PMReply

    Give me Nicole Kidman over any other actress any day. At least you get someone unique and versatile, I'm done with Meryl Streep - You see every tick, every change, every acting moment. Nothing is ever organic.

    Kidman is always a character, you never see that shy, awkward, annoying woman that you do in real life in her roles.

  • x | June 23, 2013 3:12 AMReply

    You need to treat everything Kidman says with caution.

  • x | June 23, 2013 3:11 AMReply

    You need to treat everything Kidman says with caution.

  • x | June 23, 2013 3:10 AMReply

    You need to treat everything Kidman says with caution.

  • Adam | June 22, 2013 4:12 PMReply

    Am I the only one that really liked the invasion?..

  • AE | June 22, 2013 5:38 AMReply

    I dismissed EWS on first viewing but watched it again recently and agree Kidman's performance is exceptional, but as regards the film itself I now feel it's one of Kubrick's best, and the only one that dealt head on with the director's fatal obsession with surfaces.

  • pol | June 21, 2013 6:52 PMReply

    Oh come on. To Die For.

    politicalfilm.wordpress.com

  • Tom | June 20, 2013 9:02 PMReply

    You forgot BMX Bandits

  • yer | June 20, 2013 8:17 PMReply

    Kidman hasn't been relevant in ages. Who cares?

  • LeeB | June 23, 2013 6:54 AM

    That's just snide rubbish, Kidman's still one of the only movie actors who manages to make any cultural impact at all. Her performance in Paperboy was surely the most controversial and discussed last year and all eyes are on her Grace Kelley. I wonder who you consider 'relevant', Channing Tatum? Yawn.

  • Lillith | June 21, 2013 5:26 AM

    You obviously do for taking some time and posting.

  • cinephile | June 20, 2013 5:58 PMReply

    Too much botox these days, unfortunately. Her face in Stoker was mask-like, shocking (although it was kind of fitting for the role and she was good in it).

  • ian | June 20, 2013 6:49 PM

    Kidman's face as moving in Stoker and you're right, she was great in Stoker. The last scene in specific.

  • jesse | June 20, 2013 6:34 PM

    Go back to 2005 where your comment belongs, please.

    And great list! I can't argue with this top 5 at all, though I'd probably put Margot at the Wedding in place of either Eyes Wide Shut or Portrait of a Lady. She's awesome in both, obviously, but I loved her for not being afraid at all to be flat out nasty at times in Margot. Her scene in the bookstore is pretty masterful in my eyes.

  • Lillith | June 20, 2013 3:35 PMReply

    Ehy be kind to Practical Magic, I loved Nicole in that movie, I agree with you choices in your top 5. I think they do her courage, determination and spunk justice.

Email Updates