Are These the Nine Young Hollywood Actresses To Keep an Eye On?
Vanity Fair reveals their Hollywood Issue cover
Photo: Vanity Fair
Vanity Fair has revealed their tri-fold cover for their Young Hollywood issue as seen above (click for a larger version) and the first thing everyone is going to shout about is how white and thin all the actresses featured are. Zoe Saldana, Gabourey Sidibe or perhaps even Freida Pinto are names most people will shout from the rooftops, "What about women of color?!?!?"
In all honesty, of the group the only names I see as truly belonging are Cornish, Mulligan, Hall, Wasikowska and Kendrick, the others are just filler or have already been featured on such lists for some time now. Stewart and Seyfried were featured on a Vanity Fair cover labeling "Hollywood's Next Wave" in August 2008 so I have a hard time considering them "new" Hollywood. Of course, Saldana was featured in the 2008 issue so I guess there are "outs" everywhere.
Pushing aside any problems you may have with the color of the actresses' skin or their weight, tell me, what names should be added here? Of those pictured above, who do you see making a serious name for themselves and who is simply lucky to be featured? You can get a detailed look at the spread right here.
Showing 36 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Carey Mulligan, Amanda Seyfried and Mia Wasikowska have some good roles lined up, I can see them making it. I also like Abbie Cornish but it doesn't appear Hollywood is knocking down her door. I'm surprised by Evan Rachel Wood's inclusion. She's not exactly a rising star, she's been one for many years and now her career is more on the decline..
@Brad
I think you should keep a careful eye on Kristen Stewart. Not because you think she is going to be the next great american actress, but because it has a strong bearing on how popular the Twilight series will eventually become. It is already as popular in America as Harry Potter (missed Potter's gross by $7 million), but could become even more popular if it's stars do well in other projects. This is especially true for it's worldwide gross, as the first Twilight doubled it's domestic gross worldwide, and New Moon managed 1.3 times it's domestic gross overseas. The Harry Potter cast, significantly, never were able to be part of projects that were widely viewed outside of Harry Potter.
I actually agree that Miley Cyrus should not be part of this actresses to watch spread. There is no need to keep an eye on her success as The Last Song should do $260 to $320 million worldwide FOR A DRAMA! Wings, a three part series she has in developement should do at least $500 million worldwide each.
While I think some of these actresses definitely belong on this list (Mulligan, Hall, Wasikowska, Kendrick), I cannot take it seriously due to the exclusion of Emily Blunt. She is easily one of the best young actresses out there (personally, my favorite actress). She's been in movies for several years now, but is only 26. Evan Rachel Wood is a few years younger, but seems thoroughly outdated.
I agree that Zoe Saldana should be on the list too, especially because she was in two of 2009's biggest movies and definitely showed her strong acting ability. I doubt her exclusion was due to race, but I admit it is odd. Precious will be coming to my town in a couple weeks, so I'll be rushing to see it then, but even without seeing it I'm confident Sidibe should be on this list. Maybe because she has only one credit to her name? Then again, Mulligan only has a few too. Once more, very odd…
Emily Blunt was featured in this about 3 or 4 years ago when The Devil Wears Prada came out so, she's been recognized already.
The exclusion of Sidibe might be due to unknown future status. Will she continue acting or do something else entirely? Some people convinced her to go out for the role of Precious, this wasn't something she had been struggling to do.
I think Emilie de Raven should be added. She's slowly making her way onto the movie scene and has been a regular on Lost. She definitely has some talent.
Definitely Emily Blunt, but I don't know if they considered her too old.
Kerry Condon showed promise in The Last Station.
Ehh…some questionable exclusions, but a decent list nonetheless. I like seeing Seyfried up here. She's avoided typecasting herself, and has chosen some diverse roles as of late. Sure she's had a short career, but come on, Mulligan more than proved her star power in "An Education". She's here to stay, guys. Hall and Kendrick are both talented, refreshing actresses…"Vicky Christina Barcelona" and "Rocket Space" really demonstrate their chops. Can't wait to see Hall take more lead roles.
Agreed that the exclusion of Emily Blunt is just wrong. The next decade will be HUGE for her. Period.
@Matt and @Kelly: Blunt was in the 2008 issue I linked to with Saldana.
Kendrick seems to play the same type of character in every movie. Wood and Cornish aren't exactly new to the Hollywood game.
Mulligan (although a bit overrated), Wasikowska and Hall should be on there.
Has Michelle Williams ever been on one of these covers???
Alice in Wonderland will be a big role for you-know-who. You-know-who is also starring in The Kids are Alright, which immediately shows promise. I hope she gets good reviews for AIW.
@mfan: I thought you liked her! I do, and her Razzie nomination really annoys me. :(
I think Seyfried probably does belong on the list: I hear "Chloe" is amazing, and I hear Seyfried does a phenomenal job as the titular character.
Based on Stewart's upcoming projects, she richly deserves to be on this list. Her ambitiousness in her role-taking is something I admire, and I think it deserves to be noted. Evan Rachel Wood is similar in that aspect. I doubt we'll see Mulligan tackle roles such as the ones Stewart has at Sundance right now.
@Martian Army: I'm sure a lot of the choices were influenced by availability. Thus the up and coming part of the equation. Actresses who have already solidified their positions won't make this kind of photoshoot a priority.
No. Evan rachel has been acting a while, so she isn't new. Kristen and Amanda have been on the cover of one already in 2008, so they don't need to be there this time. Emma Stone is not great so no to her also.These four could have been ommitted and they find other peeps. Ronan could have been there.
What happen to the non white actresses, don't tell me they couldn't find any!!!!
The main one to look out for this year is Mia Wasikowska. Kendrick and Mulligan have a few projects also. Seyfried too but she has already been on a Hollywood Next Wave Issue.
@m1: Let them have their jokes. Sandra is laughing all the way to the bank, and Miley will eventually be a part owner in the bank.
I like the idea of Mulligan and Kendrick, as I think they are enormously talented. I don't think Mulligan is overrated at all. Her performance in Bleak House was great, and though I have yet to see all of An Education, the clips I've seen so far are very good. As for Anna Kendrick, when I first saw Twilight, I thought she stole every scene away from the gloomy, inflectionless Kristen Stewart (who I think is just riding a popularity wave right now). I think Kendrick is versatile, and that's what counts–I think of Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, etc, when I think of versatile, and so far, Kendrick fits the bill. I would have liked to see Zoe Saldana. Regardless of color, she's better material than Stewart or Seyfried. Frieda Pinto, yes. Emily Blunt, definintely.
I just wish there were some Latina actresses on this list.
@mfan: In almost all of your posts, you put great emphasis on the fact that, regardless on their acting abilities, people like Miley Cyrus and Sandra Bullock are great because of the amount of money they make and how many prepubescent kids are giving it to them. You're always quoting how much money they bring in. If this picture is truly the case, it would be incredibly pitiful and pathetic for said actresses. That's not what I call great, nor is it what most people consider great, I think.
(For the record, I find Sandra Bullock to be a pretty good actress.)
@mfan: And I'm sorry, but I must make comment on your previous comment as well. Are you really saying that the reason Miley Cyrus wasn't chosen for this photo shoot was because of scheduling conflicts? Are you immune to the smell of denial?
@Matt:
I do agree that, they should have included Emily Blunt but Abbie Cornish is actually a year older than her, so i doubt it was the age.
One reason that Zoe Saldana might not be on the list is because she isnt what Hollywood would Consider a "Young Hollywood Actress." She is in her thirties. And in Hollywood 30s isnt "Young".
And i agree that Frieda Pinto and Gabourey Sidibe were both amazing in their first movie roles but, until they have another creditable movie under their belt, i wouldnt consider them among the new decade of Holllywood just yet.
Out of these girls i would have to say that my top picks are Kristen Stewart, Amanda Seyfried, and Anna Kendrick.
Emma Stone is a girl that i actually really hope does get big! I love her in the movies she has done, but she does seem to stick to more comedic rolls. i.e. House Bunny, Zombieland, and Superbad to name a few.
I can also possibly see Carey Mulligan doing quite well also, especially considering how many movies she has lined up, but being "new" its hard to tell bc she hasnt been in to many movies.
Mia Wasikowska will be very popular in 2010 bc she is Alice in AIW. Where she will go from there, im not sure..
Im not sure about Abbie Cornish's role on this list, considering the last movies she had that did anything was Bright Star, and 2008s Stop-loss. She is a great actress but I dunno about her being apart a huge part of the "New Decade of Hollywood." She has become very low key.
Entertainment Weekly Did a Poll on these girls to see which girls would still be "it" in 2010.. Anyone want to guess who's winning? Its almost not surprising.
Heres the link if anyone else is interested…
http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/02/01/vanity-fair-cover-girls-which-one-will-still-be-it-in-10-years/
@Garrett: I'm on my way out the door so I can't do your first comment justice right now, but I realized after I posted my remarks about scheduling that it could be misunderstood. I started to express to Martian Army that scheduling conflicts for this live photoshoot could be one reason the actresses he thought should be represented weren't. Then, in mid comment, my thoughts did drift to Miley. I've noticed that Miley, previously a publicity machine, has ratcheted down her promotion schedule, even skipping the The People's Choice Awards, for which she won Favorite Breakout Movie Actress, to be with her boyfriend who she is very serious about. She was in town, and could have gone. Because she feels relatively secure about her career, she now skips general publicity shoots like the one in Vanity Fair. She doesn't need it, but she does need to nail down her future relationships.
Out of all these pictured have to say my top pick is Stewart followed by Seyfried..although i feel Frieda Pinto should have been included..some amazing talent in these ladies.Although Stewart is not exactly new to the scene..shes been making movies with the big wig actors sense she was a child..but reviews say she shows her acting chops in her two movies that premiered at Sundance…I hear she plays a spot on Joan Jett in the runaways..cant wait for this movie.
i think anna, kristen, carey and amanda deserve to be here
The group gathered in that magazine shot certainly represents the creme de le creme….BUT!!! Whomever was assigned to come up with the names dropped the ball BIG TIME by not including Chloe Moretz. After seeing Chloe Moretz in a few films of late — especially "500 Days of Summer" — and then seeing the "Hitgirl" trailer promoting the upcoming film, "Kick-ass," I'm certain she has the talent to become one of the best of the above group (or at least up in the top five, with actresses like Evan Rachel Wood).
I saw An Education and I loved Carrey Mulligan's subtly sincere and gently moving performance. I am happy she got an Oscar nomination, among the 2010 nominees I think she deserves to win…she reminds me of Audrey Hepburn. and if she doesn't in the Oscars I'm sure she will be nominated again in the future. I am looking forward for her future films and performances! = )
@Garrett: All we do on this web site is predict which movies, and which actors will be successful. Which movies will open with $30 million, which movies will make it to $100 million, will Avatar pass Titanic, etc.
The reletivization of truth promoted by classical Sophism has never been successfully refuted. Since truth is relative, so are peoples ideas of quality. In fact many ancient greeks would say we are doing cinema all wrong, needing a god to end a movie by making things right. The argument can also be made that all fiction is inferior to non-fiction or reality shows. Or the reverse. In this uncertain climate, an objective measure of quality is by the votes of people with their dollars. If people like stupid pet tricks, then strictly speaking, that is quality. The French love Jerry Lewis and call him a genius. Millions of Miley fans think she great. What you call great is irrelevent except to the things, and people you support with your dollars. TV is judged by ratings that bring in dollars. A successful theater run is judged by ticket sales -dollars. Whether a movie even gets made is based on a judgement of it's financial viability. Philosophically, we like something or not, and then muster the arguments for or against it. That's how people convince others to like the 3 stooges.
Your judgement of Sandra's and Miley's acting ability cannot be called truth. It's more like fashion. For my fashion dollars, Miley is it!
About Annie Leibovitz's photoshoot. People ask why there are no minorities in the photo. Annie considers herself an artist. But we're not talking the art of photography. We are talking modern art, which trys to get a reaction from it's audience, so that the reaction becomes part of the art. It's not inconceivable that not havinng a minority was done on purpose to induce your questions and indignation. Notice the pastels that accentuate their white skin? Annie thinks she is an artist, but she is more like a comedian who gets by with racial and sex jokes.
I should complain about the girls in the Vanity Fair cover. But to be honest, I'm stumped. I don't have a comprehensive list of actresses from fetus to 29 who were all memorable this year.
My top four would be Abbie, Rebecca, Evan Rachel and Anna.
I haven't seen Kristen Stewart's work, but people will give her a shot and she'll be offered roles for the rest of her life. There's no way she'll be crappy in every single one of them.
P.s. And I would have added Romola Garai in the list.
Saoirse Ronan definitely deserves to be on this list and on the actual front cover.
Kristen Stewart has no talent for acting and shouldn't even be considered for this list, let alone on the cover. If her lack of ability to show any type of emotion or play any character as someone but herself is the future of Hollywood, then there is no future in Hollywood.
Evan Rachel Wood, Carey Mulligan, and Anna Kendrick deserve to be on the list as they can act and give strong performances. I like Emma Stone and think she has a lot of potential but she hasn't really done any dramatic roles to showcase her acting capabilities.
@abbylee
i second to that! saoirse ronan deserves to be part of this issue. she was amazing playing that creepy little girl in atonement and was just mesmerizing in the lovely bones. maybe she's too young?? i don't know but i bet in the coming years she'll be part of something like this.
this is actually a good list it's just weird that again, they included kristen stewart and amanda seyfried. and oh rebecca hall? she's still considered young? wow i'm 26, ok! haha. i think she's great i loved her in vicky, cristina, barcelona but she should've been part of this a year ago.
Saoirse Ronan is the most talented young actress in ages!! So she must have been in this picture! But she was born in 1994 so she is years younger than these ladies in this Vanity Fair cover…..
@mfan: That's actually only about 10% of what we do here at RopeofSilicon.
The rest of your post is simply you embarrassingly beating around the bush and contradicting yourself with the most random facts and points while admitting to my original accusation. You try to say it's all subjective, but then suggest that it can only be measured by the money (again)? Not only that, but you still avoid the chance to praise such stars like Miley Cyrus for her acting abilities. Perhaps because she lacks said abilities? Your intentions couldn't be more obvious, but you can't even come up with anything reasonable to show your support for Cyrus except, "she brings in the money!" If that's the case, then so be it. I can only hope that one day you not only find better taste in actresses (preferably ones with more experience outside of the Disney channel), but ones that can actually act.
@mfan: And once again, I must drop my jaw at your scraping at the bottom of the barrel. Miley Cyrus wasn't included or even considered for such a Vanity Fair cover, not because she decided to "skip it," but because she can only look up at such a tier from far below. These actress are known for their acting. They can act, and are quite good at it. This is the difference between these actress and Cyrus, and why she wasn't included.
Miley has done the cover of Vanity Fair. Therefor one could make the case that all of the pictured actresses on the Vanity Fair cover equals one Miley Cyrus.
You need to get real. When one civilization overruns another, questions about what civilization was the better become moot, and is only debated by members of the losing civilization as they hide out in caves.
It's difficult to have a rational discussion with you, because my rational comments might be taken an incendiary, and deleted. But I will try. You don't even realize, I feel, how outrageous your comments are. Your arguments are the exact same arguments made by the Taliban against America! They, too, believe that success isn't a measure of quality, and they resent America for being able to spread it's influence, even to their own children. They, too, think they have a higher moral position, and believe their ideas should prevail. Please reexamine your beliefs that your opinions should neccessarily prevail in the marketplace of ideas.