Are you going to see The Girl on the Train when it opens this Friday? I think I’m going to. Not on Friday, but at some point over the weekend. Emily Blunt covers the November issue of British Vogue to promote the film, and she seems fine. I actually love the cover shot – a little bit sassy, and very pretty. You know what I think is strange? In all of Emily’s press for this film (thus far) she hasn’t been asked about her controversy last year for repeatedly saying that she was “sad” to become an American citizen for tax purposes. How is no one asking her about that? Anyway, here are some highlights from Emily’s appearance on Vogue UK’s “The Real Issue.”
How she got “real” for the cover: “It took three hours of hair and make-up to get me looking this real! Earlier I started to lactate on these designer clothes and I was like, ‘I need to go and pump!’”
The lack of roles for women in Hollywood: “There’s such a shortage that when they do arise there’s a bit of a feeding frenzy among my peers. It’s a very good thing that we keep talking about the issue. It’s a conversation that needs to continue. Although I would prefer that we actually go in a direction of producing and creating more jobs for women in the film industry as opposed to talking about it.”
I think it’s interesting that she talks about the lack of decent roles for women these days, because she’s been having a pretty good run of it. I’m sure that she’s been told no so many times in the past, but seriously: so many actresses probably wanted this role in The Girl on the Train. And dare I say… some of those actresses might have been better suited for the role? Her character isn’t supposed to be beautiful and thin, and they really didn’t “ugly up” Emily for the role. There’s been some criticism that Emily didn’t transform enough for the role, I’m just saying.
Photos courtesy of Josh Olins/British Vogue.
Well it’s not like what she says is wrong.
I didn’t read the whole article, but I didn’t have the impression she was particularly saying “oh poor me.” Just because she’s been fortunate enough to nab some of the juicy parts doesn’t make what she said less valid. I don’t see anything wrong with saying there needs to be more for everyone.
I thought the citizenship thing was a tempest in a teacup. Wouldn’t almost anyone feel at least a twinge at “repudiating” the country of her birth, no matter how glad you were to become a citizen of another one? I never took it as anything to get upset about. I thought it was a very understandable sentiment.
I never said she was wrong. My comment literally says it’s not like what she says is wrong aka I agree with her despite Kaiser saying she’s been lucky to nab a few good roles.
I know, Sam, I was agreeing with you
‘How is no one asking her about that?’
thank god no one is, she already explained what she meant, aren’t we over it yet?
i’m glad she’s talking about the lack of good roles for actresses, she’s right though, it would be best if they also did something about it.
“Her character isn’t supposed to be beautiful and thin, and they really didn’t “ugly up” Emily for the role.’
She’s thin, but I think she has the type of face where opinions might differ on how pretty she is (No, I don’t personally think she’s bad-looking, but her face seems to be within the realm of…achievable?). I don’t get the sense that she’s unanimously viewed as beautiful like Angelina Jolie or whoever. If she weren’t chosen for the role, I suspect that someone with the same level of looks would have been chosen anyway.
I agree. I don’t find her breathtakingly beautiful. She’s attractive, and when she’s all glammed up, she can be beautiful, but I can imagine seeing her in workout clothes without makeup and not even turning around to take a second look.
I think probably most celebrities would be that way. In sweatpants, with no makeup, they’d probably be someone we would think was pretty if we saw them in line at the grocery store or waiting at the dentist’s office, but we wouldn’t necessarily think movie-star gorgeous without Hollywood magic.
I think Angelina Jolie would definitely make me turn around and look again, even in sweatpants. 🙂 So would, say, Cortney Cox (pre-cosmetic surgery). But yeah, Jennifer Aniston, JLaw, Taylor Swift – not at all. In fact, I once knew a girl who looked a lot like TS (not an exact copy, but similar features and proportions), and I didn’t even think she was pretty.
Why would they ask about her about that issue again? It was a joke! And I don’t see why being sad is such an issue anyway. If I became a British citizen, I’d be happy…and still miss things about being an American citizen. Ugh that “issue” was so stupid.
Right. I’m an Anglophile. I’ve longed all my life to be British (less so after Brexit, but this election is tipping the scales back again). If I had the chance to move to the UK, I’d most likely take it. I’d still probably have a lump in my throat thinking of pledging to the flag as a child and all the Fourth of July fireworks and baseball games etc etc…
The Girl on the Train is getting some not so good reviews.
I saw that, too…I really liked the book, but the movie trailer just looks “meh” to me.
I love Emily on the cover and love her dress, but don’t like the picture as a whole. I think it’s the background. Looks like an amateur shot: you wanted to snap this picture at noon, so just went into the shade and took it, without much thought to the washed-out green of the background with some dried up grass (?).
Either make it lush, or blur it out more or something…
I don’t love this dress. Too schoolmarmish.
When I read the header all I could imagine was the animal scene in Mean Girls.
Brit over here. Saw girl on the train last night and she is fantastic in the role.
I’ve liked Emily in all her movies that I’ve seen, and I love Emily and John as a couple.