Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 19:28:54 GMT -5
LOL is right! Bet you didn't go see the movie. Jackie did as well with her part as Ingrid Bergman could have. I know because Ingrid is my favorite actress, and I saw the movie. Jackie took Redford's careful direction and gave him the performance he wanted. The best that could be expected from a totally inexperienced 10 year old. No hit on Jackie. But the opportunity didn't lead to anything else, because, though adequate, nothing about it would have made a producer sit up and say, "get me that kid". Unfortunately, Jackie's big chance came before she was ready for it. Some day, it may come again, and let's hope she will have been prepared. It's my understanding that Redford was attracted to Jackie because of her confidence on stage, her charming appeal and musical talent. He wanted a child to groom for the role, sensing she could and would follow his direction in achieving what he wanted. It was a success in that respect. I don't see it as a missed "big chance", because she wasn't seeking a role as an actor. Afterward, she said she would like to do it again but not with any determined ambition, but perhaps as an additional interest among others. I would certainly not consider this reference to Jackie's appearance in the movie relevant to a discussion of "Mistakes".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 19:48:40 GMT -5
I think it is relevant that Robert R. stated very early that the movie was not an award winning production and that it was low budget. It was never expected to be a "BIG" draw and therefore unlikely to attract the attention of a major producer that would have benefitted Jackie. Robert knew what he was getting before taking her on and knew afterwards that he really lucked-out when he scored with Jackie who at best he originally considered a high risk. But he accepted the risk and was very pleased that he did.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Apr 1, 2019 20:40:47 GMT -5
Yes he took a big chance and it payed off, he got a good performance from Jackie and got her for cheap, something you need to do when you have a very low budget. It was a win for Redford and a win for Jackie as she got a lot of promotion out of it.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Apr 1, 2019 20:48:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geb on Apr 1, 2019 22:11:00 GMT -5
There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people trying to get into a movie every year. To get a minor part with multiple scenes in a Robert Redford movie is rare. Jackie was very fortunate to have been given the opportunity and did pretty decent for someone with virtually zilch experience. To give everyone an idea as to how tough it is to get into a Hollywood movie, here is a chart showing the total number of significant movies released in the US and Canada during the years 2000 to 2018. As you can see, there were a reported 689 films released in 2013. Domestically, "The Company You Keep" was the 153rd film in box office receipts. By itself, the film would have been the 26th best performing film studio out of the 165 film studios that released films in 2013. The film was released by Sony Classics which released 21 films in 2013. It was the 4th best performing movie for Sony Classics in 2013 only behind "Blue Jasmine" (3 Academy Award nominations including winning Best Actress for Cate Blanchett), "Before Midnight" (1 Academy Award nomination) and "Amour" (5 Academy Award nominations including winning Best Foreign Film). The film that was number 5 was "The Gatekeepers" (1 Academy Award nomination). If "The Company You Keep" had not been so controversial, it may have had a shot at getting an Academy Award nomination. It definitely would have performed better in the box office. But it is what it was. And Jackie was fortunate to have been given an opportunity to be in a real Hollywood film and work with one of the legends of film. That can never be taken away from her and may be able to, at some future point, at least open a door to a try-out for another movie. That is not an easy thing to get. The reported worldwide revenues for "The Company You Keep" was $19,633,027 in 2013 dollars. To put that in perspective, the movie "The Bling Ring" which had Emma Watson (of "Harry Potter" fame and a renown movie star who was later picked to be Belle in Disney's live action remake of "Beauty and the Beast" in 2017 which did $1,263,521,126) in the lead was a smidge behind with reported worldwide revenues of $19,145,732. www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=companyyoukeep.htmwww.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blingring.htmHere is a list of the 2013 US films released in 2013. www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 0:26:43 GMT -5
There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people trying to get into a movie every year. To get a minor part with multiple scenes in a Robert Redford movie is rare. Jackie was very fortunate to have been given the opportunity and did pretty decent for someone with virtually zilch experience. To give everyone an idea as to how tough it is to get into a Hollywood movie, here is a chart showing the total number of significant movies released in the US and Canada during the years 2000 to 2018. As you can see, there were a reported 689 films released in 2013. Domestically, "The Company You Keep" was the 153rd film in box office receipts. By itself, the film would have been the 26th best performing film studio out of the 165 film studios that released films in 2013. The film was released by Sony Classics which released 21 films in 2013. It was the 4th best performing movie for Sony Classics in 2013 only behind "Blue Jasmine" (3 Academy Award nominations including winning Best Actress for Cate Blanchett), "Before Midnight" (1 Academy Award nomination) and "Amour" (5 Academy Award nominations including winning Best Foreign Film). The film that was number 5 was "The Gatekeepers" (1 Academy Award nomination). If "The Company You Keep" had not been so controversial, it may have had a shot at getting an Academy Award nomination. It definitely would have performed better in the box office. But it is what it was. And Jackie was fortunate to have been given an opportunity to be in a real Hollywood film and work with one of the legends of film. That can never be taken away from her and may be able to, at some future point, at least open a door to a try-out for another movie. That is not an easy thing to get. The reported worldwide revenues for "The Company You Keep" was $19,633,027 in 2013 dollars. To put that in perspective, the movie "The Bling Ring" which had Emma Watson (of "Harry Potter" fame and a renown movie star who was later picked to be Belle in Disney's live action remake of "Beauty and the Beast" in 2017 which did $1,263,521,126) in the lead was a smidge behind with reported worldwide revenues of $19,145,732. www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=companyyoukeep.htmwww.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blingring.htmHere is a list of the 2013 US films released in 2013. www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htmThat film in no way was Oscar worthy. It wasn't a critical success as well. www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_company_you_keep
|
|
|
Post by Julia Trenholm on Apr 2, 2019 7:19:27 GMT -5
And he allowed enough takes to get what he wanted. LOL Right Julia. I heard they needed to do THREE DOZEN or more takes for every one of Jackie's scenes. LOL No you didn't, nor did I. OTOH, neither was she one-take Jackie. Jackie or Lisa said, later, that Redford took extra time with her, explaining what he wanted before he shot and then re-doing the scene until he got it. He was only paying "scale" so he could afford the extra time.
|
|
|
Post by rob49 on Apr 2, 2019 7:34:38 GMT -5
LOL Right Julia. I heard they needed to do THREE DOZEN or more takes for every one of Jackie's scenes. LOL No you didn't, nor did I. OTOH, neither was she one-take Jackie. Jackie or Lisa said, later, that Redford took extra time with her, explaining what he wanted before he shot and then re-doing the scene until he got it. He was only paying "scale" so he could afford the extra time. Most people would feel sorry for you, a bitter old woman, with nothing better to do in her life for the last 8 years but spend everyday attacking a young child from the time she was 10 years old. I don't feel sorry for you, because I KNOW what you are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 8:23:01 GMT -5
No you didn't, nor did I. OTOH, neither was she one-take Jackie. Jackie or Lisa said, later, that Redford took extra time with her, explaining what he wanted before he shot and then re-doing the scene until he got it. He was only paying "scale" so he could afford the extra time. Most people would feel sorry for you, a bitter old woman, with nothing better to do in her life for the last 8 years but spend everyday attacking a young child from the time she was 10 years old. I don't feel sorry for you, because I KNOW what you are. The only one around here who seems bitter is you with all your personal attacks on members in here who don't give angelic like praise on everything that Jackie does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 11:27:03 GMT -5
"Little Jackie has left the building"!...."Thank God she's an adult now".
....oops. This 3 day critique of 12 year old Jackie's role in a less than "Oscar worthy" movie never happened, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 12:00:35 GMT -5
"Little Jackie has left the building"!...."Thank God she's an adult now". ....oops. This 3 day critique of 12 year old Jackie's role in a less than "Oscar worthy" movie never happened, right? …. or the constant personal attacks by Rob just happens to slip your mind.... nah couldn't be!? Talking about a movie not being Oscar worthy is ummmm lets see.... is an opinion of the actual MOVIE itself. I could go over the top and say it was the best film since THE GODFATHER!? lol By the way it appears that Jackie herself is also quite pleased that she is no longer that little girl anymore.
|
|
|
Post by jamesn on Apr 2, 2019 13:28:13 GMT -5
Yes he took a big chance and it payed off, he got a good performance from Jackie and got her for cheap, something you need to do when you have a very low budget. It was a win for Redford and a win for Jackie as she got a lot of promotion out of it. Another aspect of Redford's choice that nobody has mentioned yet is that according to the publicity interviews given at the premiere (included in the DVD) he needed someone who could learn and perform FAST because he had put off choosing an actress to play that part until it was time for it to be filmed. He had procrastinated and was faced with the need for someone who could not only begin immediately but also hopefully produce the kind of performance needed. Supposedly he and Susan Sarandon had both independently watched the same airing of the DWM PBS Special - according to one interview he called it a girl singing Puccini, so he must've gotten in on the end - and they compared notes, thinking Jackie seemingly had enough experience to be able to do this on short notice, which of course she did.
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Apr 2, 2019 13:48:32 GMT -5
Yes he took a big chance and it payed off, he got a good performance from Jackie and got her for cheap, something you need to do when you have a very low budget. It was a win for Redford and a win for Jackie as she got a lot of promotion out of it. Another aspect of Redford's choice that nobody has mentioned yet is that according to the publicity interviews given at the premiere (included in the DVD) he needed someone who could learn and perform FAST because he had put off choosing an actress to play that part until it was time for it to be filmed. He had procrastinated and was faced with the need for someone who could not only begin immediately but also hopefully produce the kind of performance needed. Supposedly he and Susan Sarandon had both independently watched the same airing of the DWM PBS Special - according to one interview he called it a girl singing Puccini, so he must've gotten in on the end - and they compared notes, thinking Jackie seemingly had enough experience to be able to do this on short notice, which of course she did. Didn't he say that several young girls had previously interviewed for the part, but he didn't feel that they fit the role?
|
|
|
Post by Julia Trenholm on Apr 2, 2019 17:05:09 GMT -5
No you didn't, nor did I. OTOH, neither was she one-take Jackie. Jackie or Lisa said, later, that Redford took extra time with her, explaining what he wanted before he shot and then re-doing the scene until he got it. He was only paying "scale" so he could afford the extra time. Most people would feel sorry for you, a bitter old woman, with nothing better to do in her life for the last 8 years but spend everyday attacking a young child from the time she was 10 years old. I don't feel sorry for you, because I KNOW what you are. Obviously, you don't. But I do understand that, from time to time, you seem to get some sort of strange, orgiastic pleasure out of flooding the screen with bile. It must relieve some sort of pressure that appears to build up over time.
|
|
|
Post by Julia Trenholm on Apr 2, 2019 17:16:36 GMT -5
Another aspect of Redford's choice that nobody has mentioned yet is that according to the publicity interviews given at the premiere (included in the DVD) he needed someone who could learn and perform FAST because he had put off choosing an actress to play that part until it was time for it to be filmed. He had procrastinated and was faced with the need for someone who could not only begin immediately but also hopefully produce the kind of performance needed. Supposedly he and Susan Sarandon had both independently watched the same airing of the DWM PBS Special - according to one interview he called it a girl singing Puccini, so he must've gotten in on the end - and they compared notes, thinking Jackie seemingly had enough experience to be able to do this on short notice, which of course she did. Didn't he say that several young girls had previously interviewed for the part, but he didn't feel that they fit the role? Yes. It was because he said he didn't want a professional kid actor. So when he saw Jackie on AGT, at someone's recommendation, apparently, she had the persona he was looking for, so he asked them to shoot a screen test for him. Both Jackie and her mother said she was awful, but I guess Redford thought he could work with her. PLUS, never forget, although he was getting her at scale, AGT had given Jackie a burst of publicity and I suppose he thought that she would be a cut rate help in getting people in the theater seats.
|
|