Exactly what is it that makes someone's career one of those classically bad?
Here's a girl who had Hollywood's ear for awhile, and had a lot of buzz, but then just did crap after that for several years.
Is it her manager's fault or her agent's?
Far less beautiful and far less talented people have had less successful careers. It is a hollywood puzzle that demands unraveling!
Sublime rage is deeper than religion,
burning passion is stronger than love -Nongae Pyun Yong-ro
Julia made some of these choices - to do Smilla and other roles that were meatier and more challenging, less 'Hollywood.'
I've enjoyed everything she's been in, and I figure, it's her life and career.
~*~*~*
TheHellcat
meow. claws. hiss. purr. get it?
Yella Fella,
The way you write about her proves she succeeded in her career.
To the OP...
Some magnificent insects like some butterflies have a worm-like life just to transform some day and live as a butterfly for only one day (just one DAY!)....one day means a lot to those forms of life...in one day, they search for couple, copulate and then die...(and I´m sure that they do not ask for more)
Does this bothers you?...if not, forgive Julia, she had what many look like a disastrous short career, but for me, her career meant a lot...
A Hollywood career´s not easy as you may think (I guess you don´t)...to reach the top is hard, and she did that...at least for a couple of years.
Maybe she´s satisfied, let her be satisfied.
Sometimes life isn´t about quantity, but quality...and she did pure quality (that´s what I think)...
There are just very few good roles written for women in movies, even fewer written for women over 35 (which means casting a 25 year old as a 35 year old) and only a handful of actresses get all the roles for women over 30. Just a fact. Julia was gorgeous (still is IMO) but there is always another gorgeous actress a few years younger who gets the part.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
I agree with the OP a little. Maybe Julia Ormond consciously decided to do less "Hollywood" roles, but her career has been a little strange, considering. In 1994-1996 she was The Next Big Thing in Hollywood. She had a kind of fame that was extremely rare. Think of it this way: would any of you find it strange if Jennifer Lawrence was getting only small roles in 7 years? Julia Ormond was the J. Law of her day. She was getting starring roles in big movies across with the biggest leading men of their day. She was basically chosen by Hollywood to be one of those actresses making $10 million a movie. Now maybe she personally rejected that, but there was a streak there in the mid 90s where she made three big Hollywood movies back to back with the biggest male stars of the day. She looked poised to take over Julia Roberts' spot as the top actress in the world.
Her career trajectory is a bit mystifying to say the least.