Nicole Kidman’s 5 Bravest Roles

“The Portrait of a Lady” (1996)
Even those critics who disliked Jane Campion’s interpretation of Henry James’ classic novel (and it is an interpretation, not an adaptation) — and they seemed in the majority overall — singled out Kidman’s central performance for praise. And on that level, if on almost no other concerning a film we admire hugely, we can certainly agree with those critics. Kidman is riveting in the central role of Isabel Archer, the naïve, impetuous and intelligent young woman whose promise and curiosity are gradually throttled to nothing after she makes the mistake (the “generous mistake” as her cousin Ralph puts it) of falling for and marrying the wrong man. While “To Die For” the previous year had already suggested that there might be more to the actress than thriller/romance/action furrow she’d been ploughing in Hollywood till then, the arch irony of that film’s satire just didn’t prepare us for the simple rawness of her performance in ‘Portrait.’ It was really one of the earliest examples of traits Kidman would demonstrate again through films good and bad; her unswerving commitment to the character and her total faith in her director. Minimally made-up and with frequent raw close-ups that push almost unbearably close in to her, Campion gives Kidman no part of Isabel to hide behind — even the lavish costuming and set design is constructed to oppress her from all sides — and instead she simply embodies her. There were James purists who called foul at, for example, Isabel crying, which she never does in the book, but we’d urge them, or anyone, to take a second look at this performance outside of the context of its fidelity to the novel, or even some of the arthouse flourishes Campion adds. For us, the empathy, the tragedy and the strangeness of the story rewards immensely, and all that is channelled through Kidman’s remarkably egoless but elegant turn.

“Dogville” (2003)
Of the many epithets that have been attached to Lars von Trier’s name over the years — enfant terrible, provocateur, genius, misogynist, Nazi — one of the stickiest has been “torturer of actresses” (you can read about his bust-up with “Dancer in the Dark” star Bjork here, along with other notable actor/director spats). And Kidman was certainly not immune to his hectoring, temperamental ways, with director and star reportedly taking frequent long walks so they could shout at each other in private. But whether the working relationship was better or worse than with his other leading ladies, the performance Kidman gave is among the best he’s ever elicited (and remember both Bjork and Kirsten Dunst won Cannes Best Actress trophies, and Emily Watson was nominated for an Oscar, for their roles in von Trier movies), and definitely among the best she’s ever given. On the one hand it’s a gift of a role for an actress ambitious to show her range, of course, tracing an arc from naivety and innocence through increasingly gruesome psychological and sexual victimization, to powerlessness and hopelessness, before building back up and culminating in a towering act of revenge that wouldn’t seem amiss in a Park Chan-wook movie. But the film’s experimental theatricalism, and hyper-unreal stylization means it could easily have run the risk of alienating the viewer from the human drama and losing the performance or worse, rendering it ridiculous, within the avant-garde trappings. But Kidman is again fearless, and makes us believe the environment through sheer power of her own conviction in her performance.

“The Paperboy” (2012)
Ah well. For every few gambles that pay off there has to be at least one that doesn’t, right? And boy, Kidman’s all-in, bet-the-farm-and-throw-in-them-gator-hides-too roll of the dice on Lee Daniels’ “The Paperboy” did not pay off. Which actually makes it an interesting and honest addition to this list — after all, if all daring choices guaranteed even a qualified triumph, there’d be nothing truly daring about them, would there? The instinct for unembarrassed trust in the director’s vision that marks some of her most interesting collaborations is also on display here, but Daniels is no Kubrick, Campion, Glazer or von Trier. Instead his impulse seems to be to coach Kidman (and in fairness, the rest of the cast who rise/sink to the occasion in accordance with their talents too) into avoiding as much as she can any approximation of real human behavior. But whether it’s the headline-grabbing, pun-ready moment when she pisses on Zac Efron or whether she’s causing John Cusack to spontaneously ejaculate by writhing and touching herself flanked by near-strangers at a prison interview, Kidman flings herself into the role, such as it is, purring and clawing and pouring herself wholly into some kind of platonic ideal mould of a hypersexualized white trash woman with a taste for bad boys.The whole thing plays at such a lurid pitch of straight-up bad taste, that perhaps the only unforgivable crime you could have committed as an actor already contractually obliged to complete filming would have been to back out, even a little, to try to wink or nod or allow even the slightest note of irony to creep in to your performance. It’s a credit to Kidman’s professionalism that that never happens, though we fear the results would make us a bit gunshy about committing to as risky a role in the near future.