Nicole Kidman gave an interview to a Sydney radio station in which she revealed that she had a difficult time sitting through her epic film, Australia, and that it was only the second movie she’d acted in that she’d actually watched in her entire career. Then she said that she fled her native Australia immediately after the film opened in an attempt to avoid reading any negative coverage of her performance:
It was expected to be the blockbuster that saved Australia’s tourist industry – because with ‘local star’ Nicole Kidman in the key role, where could it go wrong?
But in her eyes, her role in the £50 million movie Australia was a flop.
She admits in an astonishing interview with a Sydney radio station that she couldn’t bear to watch it when she attended the premiere in the harbour city in November.
Miss Kidman, who plays an English aristocrat who falls for a cowboy played by fellow Australian Hugh Jackman as they drive a herd of cattle across the outback, told radio station 2dayFM that she couldn’t look at the movie and be proud of what she had done.
In fact, she revealed, she ‘squirmed’ in her seat throughout the Sydney premiere.
Miss Kidman, who attended the premiere with country singer husband Keith Urban, said: ‘I can’t look at this movie and be proud of what I’ve done.
‘I sat there and I looked at Keith and went “Am I any good in this movie?”
‘But I thought Brandon Walters (an 11-year-old Aboriginal boy) and Hugh Jackman were wonderful.
‘It’s just impossible for me to connect to it emotionally at all.’
She said she was so nervous about her performance that she fled Australia as soon as the premiere was over with her husband and their five-month-old daughter Sunday Rose.
‘We ran because I didn’t want to read anything. I didn’t want to know.
‘I saw my sister and my family and we saw Keith’s family and then we were straight on a plane.’
She said she had only attended the premiere to please director Baz Luhrmann, with whom she made ‘Moulin Rouge’.
‘I don’t usually see my films, but because of Baz I had to see it. I saw “Moulin Rouge”.
‘I’ve really only seen that and this in my whole career.
‘It gets worse as I get older.’
[From The Daily Mail]
Kidman’s performance has been widely panned by just about every critic out there. In fact it had a lot of people asking if she could really act anymore. To be fair, an overly-Botoxed brow never helped an actress in terms of her actual performance. But to say Kidman came off as stiff is an understatement. I can’t help but wonder if Nicole would feel similarly about her other movies if she’d seen them. I can see how hard it would be to watch yourself on film, no matter what. I can’t even imagine how you could sit through a nearly three hour movie when you come off as flat and awkward.
Nicole has often been labeled frosty, and she has picked some roles that work well with it. That might be something to consider in the future. Along with keeping syringes away from her forehead.
Here’s Nicole and Keith taking Sunday Rose to church on Christmas morning in Nashville. Images thanks to Fame.
She looked so much better when she was preggers and cut out the Botox and lip injections.
She was EXCELLENT in The Golden Compass. Perhaps, because the character was a controll freak bitch-face.
Its a real shame what shes done to herself. I always thought she was so gorgeous especially with red hair.
I know a lot of people think she’s a great actress, but I’ve never seen it. She’s never been believable to me, it was always Nicole Kidman acting. I’ve never understood actors not watching themselves in films – seems like they would want to be able to critique themselves so they can improve? She makes me sad.
Hmmm… I have never been a fan of Nicole Kidman and I have never, not ever, thought she was a good actress. I am wondering if the fact that her career is bombing might indicate that on a deep level, she herself questions the criticism leveled at her career of ‘hype and not much substance’. To ask “am I any good in this movie?” doesn’t show humility, it shows deep, deep insecurity, which at her level, must eat you alive if left unchecked. She has worked as a ‘name’ for many years in big budget projects and she really doesn’t strike me as being a particularly happy person. She has been fired a couple of times for being a diva. Not that I know her at all but to me, her public persona has always seemed somewhat vacuous. Sometimes actors become victims of their own hype and there is a tipping point. She seems to be tipping…
She is also a new mother and I’m sure the transition (not to mention the hormones) are taking their toll. Much as I don’t like her, you have to admire anyone who chooses this career path because the pressures must be huge.
@oristowit: I know right? I have to agree. In any career, if you don’t seek feedback, then how do you improve? As an actor, the biggest feedback you can get is from the CAMERA. Having years of people blowing sunshine up your ass but never actually knowing your own work is hardly an accurate gauge is it? What feels good on set often translates completely differently when every little nuance is picked up by the camera. That kind of statement has always annoyed me … almost as if they’d rather just believe the press than actually self evaluate.
oh come on, people. —She doesn’t suck.— Have you ever seen Dead Calm? Moulin Rouge? Birth? Margot at the Wedding? The Hours? To Die For???? Yes, she’s over-botoxed, but this woman can act. Especially in Margot at the Wedding and To Die For – and how could you say she sucked in Moulin Rouge?? She was fantastic in that role. It’s fine to think she looks like wax, but give the woman the credit she deserves….
Frankly, I think she lost one marble or two these past 10 years or so. That Cruise/Kidman combo seemed genuine. How would you feel after spending 10 years with a nutter? She seems like a totally different person now..
In her youth she was sharp and stunning. In her interviews and on screen. Far and Away wasn’t the greatest film, but Kidman was good in it.
Cate Blanchett (sp?) blows all of the rest of the actresses out of the water, no doubt – but Kidman is no amateur or B-rate actress. I heard that this movie was terrible, so didn’t see it. Maybe she sucked because she wasn’t able to convey any emotion in her overly botoxed face.
she looks like capser the ghost. and not a particularly friendly one.
As a person who unfortunately, watched Australia- I have to say, that the movie was awful regardless of Nicole Kidman.
The script was boring, bad, with a silly boring and terribly annoying story about a child who was even more annoying.
The director went over the top and made things even worst.
With a shitty script, even if they had Vivian Leigh, they couldn’t save that film.
I live in a small village a couple of hours north of Melbourne and I have friends here and in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. Of all of those dozens of people ranging in age from late 20s through early 60s, I do not know a SINGLE PERSON who has gone to see this movie or who even plans to do so. As I sat at the hairdresser yesterday, everyone in there was asserting the same thing — that they think Kidman is a perfectly dreadful actress, shockingly overpaid for next to nothing, and that Baz needs to reign in his “cheeseball epics” tendencies. I’ve seen several of her movies on television or dvd over the last decade, and no, I never “got it” about why she was considered so fab. The fact that she refuses to engage in any critical appraisal about her body of work over the years speaks volumes to the fact that she is probably as shallow as a mud-slick and she considers that frozen face to be her best asset.
I’ve never thought she was a good actress. I didn’t even believe it when she acted like she was pregnant recently.
Wow you people are cruel. First of all she WAS pregnant, you could tell by looking at her. SEcondly, if nobody in Australia is going to see the movie, how did it make more at the BO than the latest James Bond movie? Except for the first 30 minutes *why BAZ why* Australia was a very good movie. BTW, most of that article is made up. She made those statements months ago. She didn’t flee Australia with her husband and child because of embarassment, she came back quickly because she had to leave her child in Nashville.
Agree with sassyspank on all points. No, I haven’t seen Australia, but she can (could) act – it’s just a shame that she’s hobbled herself with Botox.
@sauronsarmy – agree that she looked much better with the red hair.
I admire her candor regarding her performance, at any rate. At least she’s not spouting off about what an awesome job she did or what a challenge the role presented, blah,blah,blah. I mean, you’d never in a million years hear Tom Cruise,for example, criticizing his performance in anything. He’s AMAZING.
I saw “Australia” last week & liked it a lot–fabulous scenery of the Outback, good love story, world’s best-looking leading man (Hugh Jackman), villains, stampeding cattle, a cute little boy, a war–a good escape from the dreary winter.
I thought it was one of Nicole’s better performances. She was in pratically every scene of the entire 2 1/2-hour film, and it called for a wide range of emotions. She did it convincingly. I wasn’t sitting there thinking of her as Nicole Kidman, I was seeing her as the character.
I’m with PJ. I thought she was great in this film, esp revealing a new comic timing. NY Times critic praised her, btw. I do agree, however, that it’s unfortunate what’s happened to her beautiful face.
I have nto seen this movie yet but I am looking forward to it.
I used to think she was an above average actor. She lost it somewhere along the line along with her ability to emote naturally. I’m Australian and the LAST film I plan on paying to see at the cinema is that cheesy looking epic – Australia.