Two Sensually Stunning Performances from Penelope Cruz
Penélope Cruz, photographed at Spring Studios in London. Photographs by Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott. Styled by Jessica Diehl.Woody Allen says of Penélope Cruz: “I don’t like to look at Penélope directly. It is too overwhelming.”
The Spanish box office star Cruz has no trouble looking a beautiful women. Headlining the upcoming Rob Marshall film “Nine”, Cruz is surrounded by sensual beauty: Sophia Loren, Nicole Kidman, Judi Dench, Marion Cotillard, Fergie, and Kate Hudson, with Daniel Day-Lewis holding it all together as the film director played by Marcello Mastroianni in Fellini’s semi-autobiographical original.
Annie Leibovitz captured several of Cruz’s “Nine” costars in this 2001 April cover shot for “Vanity Fair” magazine: Nicole Kidman, Catherine Deneuve, Meryl Streep, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Kate Winslet, Vanessa Redgrave, Chloë Sevigny, Sophia Loren, and Penélope Cruz.In Vanity Fair’s November 2009 cover piece on Penélope Cruz, Sophia Loren shares a tender moment between the two Smart Sensuality women: “Penélope is very accurate in her work. She wants to be very precise about what the director wants. And she takes her career very seriously, which she should. I think she loves what she does and it shows on the screen. She has become a real friend. We talked a lot about life and our careers. I talked about De Sica, she talked about Almodóvar. When it was my last day she came to my dressing room. She was crying, and I was crying. This is the first time that I have left a film crying because we got so upset about leaving each other.”
Too spiky for the Academy? Penelope Cruz in Pedro Almodovar’s Broken Embraces. Photograph: PRCruz mines her Smart Sensuality actress genes this fall in a second film, “Broken Embraces”, her fourth film with director Pedro Almodóvar, who knows her inside and out. Film critics are surprised that the controversial film was omitted from Spain’s shortlist for next year’s Academy Award for best foreign language film.
Penelope Cruz interviewed by the Guardian’s Andrew PulverThe fiery, dramatically sensitive actress talks briefly about her extraordinary relationship with director Pedro Almodóvar, saying that he is the reason she became an actress. Cruz says that he gives her honesty, which is everything to her, even though she fears his confrontation and welcomes it at the same time.
Returning to Vanity Fair’s , Cruz talks about Almodóvar, saying “Pedro would push me to the limit. He really knows how to press all my buttons. You can only go into something like that when it’s somebody you really trust. I always feel like he’s my safety net. Like I can fly and go far, because he’s going to catch me.”
These are all the heart-throbbing sensations of a true Smart Sensuality women and Cruz brings her to life vividly on two screens this fall. Here’s the trailer for Nine, loosely inspired by Fellini’s “8 1/2 Weeks”. You must go to YouTube.
“Nine” Trailer
YouTube “Nine” trailerRead: The Passions of Penélope Vanity Fair November 2009
Anne
I’m not sure if Penelope Cruz’s article moved into our Top !0 Reads because of Ms. Cruz or the extensive comments attached regarding Roman Polanski. If Polanski, see RedTracker update: A Legal Exit Strategy for Roman Polanski.
Reader Comments (9)
I've always loved Cruz because you can tell she mines and bathes in her sensuality. I remember watching one of her earlier movies "Woman on top" (not her best movie) when I was a teen and thinking "wow I want to be like her" . However I wont be seeing her new movie or any other since she (and Almodóvar)supports a pedophile http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/01/polanski.support.backlash/index.html
So long my girl crush,
I know exactly how you feel Asmara, Cruz and Almodóvar's names on the petition in support of Polanski was crushingly disappointing. I had always loved Penelope Cruz and can only echo what you have said, 'So long my girl crush' also!
WowOWow is running commentary on the Polanski case from people we know. I admit that as much as I know "of" the Polanski case, I don't know any specific details and won't comment until I do.
Here's the link to the WowOWow question of the day: Should Roman Polanski go to prison?
http://www.wowowow.com/entertainment/should-roman-polanski-go-prison-389539
And of course, we have Asmara's link to CNN, which should also be read to inform ourselves on details of the case. Anne
This essay on Politico is thought-provoking:Brilliance doesn't always equal virtue
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27772.html
This story seems to fairly outline key facts about Polanski's life and the crime:
http://www.sltrib.com/entertainment/ci_13489470
Anne, have you read the testimony on the Loaded Gun website?
Anne, have you read the testimony on the Loaded Gun website?
Oh dear oh dear, Candice Bergman :(
Earwicga, Googled Polanski+Loaded gun and got nothing. Just leave the link for us.
The case is very complicated at this point. Clearly Polanski fled, out of fears that the judge would change his mind about the reduced plea. Polanski was released after 42 days of a 90 day psychiatric sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse. The other more serious charges were dropped (right or wrong).
Apparently a key figure in the case says that he lied in a documentary, that he told the judge to add more time. Supposedly Polanski fled for fear the judge would change his mind. (not legal under any circumstances.) Details are in this story:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/celebrities/ci_13451917
"Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal. She testified at the time that Polanski forced himself on her—which he acknowledged in his guilty plea—but has said she forgives him and wants the ordeal to be over. "
I don't know if Geimer can be forced to testify if she refuses. I don't know how a sentence can be redone, if the earlier charges were dropped. Clearly Polanski has an unlawful flight case that is not negotiable under any legal circumstances.
Marcia Clark is writing for The Daily Beast:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-06/is-polanski-the-new-oj/
This Clark story is interesting because it's got a lot of Polanski transcripts. There's no doubt that he knew she was 13. One of the articles I referenced also seems ambiguous against the transcript. The actual sentence was coming down after the 90-day mandatory psychiatric evaluation and in contrast to an above statement in one of the links, Polanski says that he's clear that no promises have been made regarding the sentence. There's no indication in the transcript that the evaluation in prison is actually the sentence time, unlike what's alleged above. I haven't read any of the justifications yet of Woody Allen (no comment, lol) and all the others on why they are siding with Polanski.
Read the transcript. It's fascinating. We have another family wanting their young daughter in French Vogue as a nubile model. Coming right after the Brooke Shields revisit of her incredibly violating photo arranged by her mother -- I don't know. These parents are the pits as well. This mom did want to go to the shoot, but I still get nervous over these stage parents putting young girls into adult situations for fame and fortune. This reality DOES NOTHING to justify Polanski's actions. It's just an aside.
The transcript is long and I can't read it all right now, but it's very interesting.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-02/the-lost-polanski-transcripts/full/
For me, bottom line, he must appear in court here in the US. He is a fugitive and we can't be arguing that the rapists be charged in the Congo and Polanski doesn't have to settle his case in the US. Rape is rape and he fled the scene. Unless I'm missing the clear arguments why the case should have been dismissed, he should reappear in the US, even if it to leave the country again, because authorities choose not to reopen the case and say that the 42 days was his sentence, or he must serve another six months or whatever they work out. It seems that this could happen -- first and foremost, if the victim wants the case closed. I don't believe they can have a whole new case without her.
And the judge is dead, so I don't know that a new judge can just dictate the sentence. I doubt that's legal.
This is a legal morass that could go on for years, although the Swiss have Polanski in prison and say they will extradite him. I just don't know what rights he has in Europe to fight the extradition. Anne
I hesitate to pull together bits and pieces here. This American Chronicle editorial makes it sound like the victim can be hauled back into the case, against her will:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/136133279
As a victim myself at 15, in a case that tore apart my family and our best friends, caused me to basically lose my faith when the Catholic Church didn't back me -- and denied me communion, so as not to further my advance into mortal sin by lying and then taking the sacraments, I do believe that the victim's wishes should at least be considered 30 years later. I would not want to be hauled into court again.
This really is a mess.
Here's the actual petition. It's probably similar to the CNN article:
http://www.altfg.com/blog/politics/adjani-huppert-rushdie-roman-polanski-petition/
Anne here. I have two more opinions here that sum up my position:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009100202892_pf.html
http://blog.kiplinger.com/politics/2009/10/polanski.html
France has already said that they will appeal directly to Hillary Clinton on the case. With the Obama Administration making the rare US move of sending William Fitzgerald to Camara, Guinea on Monday to protest the murdering of peaceful protesters and raping of women, which we reported yesterday, the French request on Polanski may fall on a "new set of ears" in the US government. Mrs. Clinton has said that she will make women's rights, including rape, a key plank in her foreign policy platform.
The administration can't make the rape of a 13-year-old by a 43-year-old man a "look the other way case". Both Clinton and Obama have daughters.
My position is, as stated last night, that Polanski must return to the US and face his crime. Given the wishes of the victim, I also hope that some resolution can be reached that works for everyone, and one that doesn't involve turning her life inside out again. She has a family and has hopefully 'healed' from her experience.
With so many loose ends in play in the case, I will not pretend to understand them or to insert myself into the judicial proceeding. But I stand firm that Polanski must return to the US and work out the case in the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed. Anne
Sorry, it is smoking gun, not loaded - I got it wrong. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html
But don't feel like you have to read it - it is triggering! I'm really sorry to hear what happened to you.
There are other really good posts here:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/09/29/getting-over-it/comment-page-2/#comment-280061 which shows that this case being in the media has affected a lot of people, including me.
There are a lot of good articles about this case on Salon, but this one stands out: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/10/02/polanski_kampmeier/index.html
I think it is a positive thing that Schwarzengger has come out and said that Polanski will be treated like any other criminal and not joining in with the Holywood awfulness.
Also, there are a lot of feminist websites that written well about this including Shakesville.
Finally, I don't think there is any need for the victim to be brought back into court - Polanski pleaded guilty (to a lesser charge) so sentencing is all that needs to be done. If he had carried this through 30 years ago then that would have been a lot easier on his victim than what he has done, letting it carry on for 30 years in the media. I'm not surprised in the least that she has said what she said.
I agree with you about the Brooke Shields photo. It is so vile that she does not even have ownership to her own body! But then, none of us women do, do we?